DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the rezoning, as adopted in the resolution dated April 18, 2000, did not constitute illegal spot zoning; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The rezoning at issue did not allow for a use which was different than that allowed in the surrounding area and was in conformity with the comprehensive plan of the Town of North Hempstead (see Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115; Matter of Stone v. Scarpato, 285 A.D.2d 467).
The project was a reconfiguration, not an expansion, of an existing shopping center. In its resolution adopting the change of zone the Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead (hereinafter the Town Board) held that reconfiguration of the existing shopping center would not have a significant impact on the environment and the environmental impact of traffic would be no greater than if the shopping center were fully occupied. In the Environmental Assessment Form (hereinafter the EAF), the Town Board noted that it anticipated "potential impacts on traffic operations, but not on traffic volume and its resultant impacts on air quality and noise."
The EAF noted that a traffic "improvement plan" involving, among other things, adding an entrance to the site from Northern Boulevard eastbound "may serve to mitigate some of the potential impacts caused by the proposed action" and stated that the merits of such a plan "will be fully evaluated as part of the site plan review process." The appellants contend that deferring consideration of the merits of the proposed traffic control plan constituted an improper segmentation of environmental review. This contention is without merit.
The Town Board characterized the change of zone as an "unlisted action" for which there is no presumption of environmental significance or nonsignificance (Matter of New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone, 293 A.D.2d 85, 91; cf. Matter of Defreestville Area Neighborhoods Assn. v. Town Bd. of Town of N. Greenbush, 299 A.D.2d 631 [3d Dept, Nov. 7, 2002]). On appeal the appellants do not challenge the characterization as an unlisted action. The Supreme Court noted that since the project was classified as an unlisted action, the Town Board was not required to conduct a coordinated review with the Department of Transportation (see 6 NYCRR 617.6[b][4][i]), which had jurisdiction over traffic control. 6 NYCRR 617.6 (b)(4)(i) permits uncoordinated review of unlisted actions by the lead agency "unless and until it determines that an action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment." Failure to address traffic concerns generated by a proposal to provide additional access to a proposed facility does not mean that the lead agency failed to take a hard look at environmental concerns (see Matter of Boyles v. Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 A.D.2d 688).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.