Opinion
April 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westhchester County (Carey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson is directed to grant the petitioner's application for site plan approval.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Planning Board of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson was authorized to deny the petitioner's application for site plan approval on aesthetic grounds. The Planning Board's denial of the petitioner's request to construct a canopy was essentially based on the proposed size and location of the canopy, which concerns affected matters expressly within the Board's jurisdiction (see, Matter of Dodson v Planning Bd., 163 A.D.2d 804; Bongiorno v Planning Bd., 143 A.D.2d 967; Moriarty v Planning Bd., 119 A.D.2d 188; Village Law § 7-725; Code of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson § 230-69 [B]; § 230-2).
However, it is undisputed that the petitioner's proposed site plan conforms to existing zoning ordinances and substantial evidence to support the Planning Board's determination based on aesthetic factors is lacking here (see, Matter of WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v Planning Bd., 79 N.Y.2d 373; Matter of C A Carbone v Holbrook, 188 A.D.2d 599; Matter of Dodson v Planning Bd., supra; Matter of Veysey v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 154 A.D.2d 819; Sackson v Zimmerman, 103 A.D.2d 843). Although the Supreme Court annulled the Planning Board's determination, it failed to direct the Board to grant the application. We now do so.
In light of the foregoing, we do not reach the parties' remaining contentions. Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.