The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recently ruled in favor of the Town of Rochester Planning Board's decision to approve a site plan for a redevelopment project. The case, known as Matter of Bruck v. Town of Rochester Planning Bd., was filed under docket number CV-25-0897 and decided on October 29, 2026. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the authority of planning boards in approving modified project proposals and their discretion in interpreting local zoning codes.

The case arose when Susan Bruck and another property owner, both residents near the proposed project site, challenged the Planning Board's approval of a site plan submitted by Accord, LLC. The project involves redeveloping a historic granary and seed mill complex in the Hamlet of Accord, located in Ulster County. The redevelopment aims to convert the existing structures into a mix of commercial and residential spaces, including a restaurant, a bike shop, and an artist gallery. The Planning Board's approval followed a lengthy review process, including public hearings and environmental assessments.

Accord, LLC acquired the property and sought to rezone it into an Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) district, which allows for mixed-use developments. The Town Board initially approved the rezoning and issued a negative declaration of environmental significance under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Following this, Accord submitted a site plan to the Planning Board, which included a detailed parking plan. However, during the review process, Accord modified its proposal by reducing the size of the project and eliminating the need for some off-site parking spaces.

The Planning Board granted conditional site plan approval on July 8, 2024, concluding that the modified project was in substantial conformance with the original conceptual development plan approved by the Town Board. The petitioners, Bruck and her co-plaintiff, argued that the Planning Board's decision violated local zoning codes by not adhering strictly to the original plan and improperly calculating parking requirements.

The court's ruling focused on the Planning Board's discretion in approving modifications to site plans. The court found that the Planning Board acted within its authority and that the modifications made by Accord were limited in scope. The court stated, "The Planning Board rationally determined that the site plan application, as so modified, was in substantial conformance with the conceptual development plan before the Town Board." This determination underscores the flexibility allowed in EEO districts, where some deviations from original plans can be permitted.

Furthermore, the court addressed the parking requirements raised by the petitioners. The Planning Board had adopted the Town Board's findings regarding the necessary parking spaces for the project. The petitioners claimed that the parking calculations for the restaurant were incorrect, asserting that more spaces were needed based on the square footage of the restaurant. However, the court noted that Accord's engineer had provided an alternative calculation method that the Planning Board accepted. The court ruled that the Planning Board was authorized to adopt the Town Board's findings regarding parking and that its decision was not arbitrary or capricious.

This ruling is significant for future developments in the Town of Rochester and similar municipalities. It reinforces the authority of planning boards to approve modified site plans and highlights the importance of local zoning codes in guiding development. The court's decision may encourage developers to pursue adaptive reuse projects within EEO districts, knowing that some flexibility exists in the approval process.

Looking ahead, the petitioners have the option to appeal the ruling. However, the court's decision is a strong affirmation of the Planning Board's authority, making it challenging for the petitioners to overturn the ruling. There are no related cases pending that would directly affect this ruling, but it may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.

In conclusion, the court's decision in Matter of Bruck v. Town of Rochester Planning Bd. clarifies the role of planning boards in approving site plans and the discretion they have in interpreting local zoning codes. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of community input in development projects while also recognizing the need for flexibility in adapting to changing project scopes.