Matter of Oyster Bay Associated Limited Partnership v Town Board of Town of Oyster Bay
This Article 78 appeal was commenced to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Oyster Bay denying petitioner’s application for a special use permit. The Supreme Court reversed the Town Board’s order and granted petitioners’ motion directing the issuance of a building permit and petitioners’ motion to compel the Town Board to adopt the findings made by the Town Environmental Quality Review Commission in 2000. The original findings of the TEQR Commission were favorable to petitioners but then the Town Board instructed the Commission to revise its initial findings.
This is the third appeal in the litigation involving the proposed construction of a 750,000 square foot shopping mall in Syosset, arising from petitioners’ applications to the Town Board for a special use permit and site plan approval. The petitioners commenced this Article 78 hearing to annul the Town Board’s determination as arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by evidence in record. The Supreme Court vacated the Town Board’s denial of petitioners’ application in 2002. In 2003, the Supreme Court granted petitioners’ motion for judgment and then reversed the order in 2005 finding that the decision did not mandate the issuance of a special use permit. In 2007, the Supreme Court denied petitioners’ motion to compel the Town Board to issue a special use permit for an 860,000-foot-shopping mall. In an attempt at resolution, the Town Board determined it would consider petitioners’ mitigation proposal for a 750,000-square-foot shopping mall. The petitioners then moved to compel the Town Board to adopt the original TEQR Commission’s findings from 2000, issue a special use permit, and process and review petitioners’ proposed site plan. In 2008, Supreme Court granted petitioners’ motion.
The Town Board then appealed and the Court reversed the order saying that the Court erred in determining the Town Board’s request that petitioners prepare an SEIS was arbitrary and capricious. The request was proper and to direct the Town Board to process and review the site plan with all due haste deprived them of the right to meaningfully consider a revised site plan for the 750,000-square-foot-shopping mall.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the order as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs and denied petitioners’ motion.