DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The petitioners contend that the conditional granting of, among other things, site plan approval violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL article 8; hereinafter SEQRA). We disagree. A court's authority to examine a SEQRA review conducted by an entity that was required to do so is limited to reviewing whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Gernatt Asphalt Prods. v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668, 688). If the record establishes that the agency "identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a `hard look' at them, and made a `reasoned elaboration' of the basis for their determination", the court will not disturb the agency's determination (Chinese Staff Workers Assn. v. City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 359, 363-364; see, Matter of Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Assn. v. Jorling, 85 N.Y.2d 382; Matter of Coalition for Responsible Dev. in Goldens Bridge v. Town Planning Bd. of Town of Lewisboro, 221 A.D.2d 626; Horn v. International Business Machs. Corp., 110 A.D.2d 87, 93; Aldrich v. Pattison, 107 A.D.2d 258, 266).
Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream (hereinafter the Board) complied with the substantive requirements of SEQRA (see, 6 NYCRR part 617 et seq.). The record establishes that the Board was fully informed of all pertinent environmental issues, including those dealing with flooding and drainage and increased traffic, before granting its conditional approval. The Board also adequately identified and addressed the environmental concerns raised in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and gave more than reasonable consideration to the issues raised by the public at the hearing. Moreover, the Board did not contravene the procedural requirements of SEQRA.
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.