From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Amherst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 27, 1988
140 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

May 27, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the site plan approval granted by the Town of Amherst Planning Board to permit Andersons Frozen Custard, Inc. to build and operate a frozen custard stand and restaurant at 6075 Main Street in the Town of Amherst. Special Term dismissed the petition. We affirm.

Town Law § 274-a (1) (a) enables the Town Board to authorize a Planning Board to review and approve site plans. In accordance with the enabling statute, the Town of Amherst vested its Planning Board (Board) with this authority in its zoning ordinance (Town of Amherst Code § 203-9-2), which provides standards for site plan approval (Town of Amherst Code § 203-9-2 [2-3.4]). Accordingly, the Board's authority is limited to a consideration of the layout, design and related aspects of the proposed development and it is not authorized to assume the powers of other town agencies or departments (see, Moriarty v Planning Bd., 119 A.D.2d 188, 198-199, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 603; see also, Matter of Apache Assocs. v Planning Bd., 131 A.D.2d 666). In this case, the Board correctly acted within its scope of authority in granting site plan approval. Moreover, the record demonstrates that the Board took the "`hard look'" and made the "`reasoned elaboration'" required in a full SEQRA review (see, Chinese Staff Workers Assn. v City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 363). Furthermore, the conference held on July 21, 1986 between several members of the Board and the Deputy Town Attorney regarding prior action taken by the Board did not constitute "the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business" (Public Officers Law § 102). No determinations were made at the July 21 assembly which affected the public and would "eventually obtain substance in official form" (Matter of Sciolino v Ryan, 81 A.D.2d 475, 478).


Summaries of

Hill v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Amherst

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 27, 1988
140 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Hill v. Planning Bd. of the Town of Amherst

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD HILL, Individually and as President of the Williamsville Southeast…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: May 27, 1988

Citations

140 A.D.2d 967 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Opn. No. 98-15

However, "it is likely that the revised language will be construed in a manner such that a board's `authority…

Mobil Oil Corp. v. City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency

In the absence of a quorum, the Open Meetings Law does not apply ( see, Matter of Tri-Village Publs. v. St.…