Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Town Board's denial of the petitioners' application for a change of zone was a legislative action (see, Matter of Napolitano v Town Bd., 128 A.D.2d 536; Kasper v Town of Brookhaven, 122 A.D.2d 200; Matter of Amerada Hess Corp. v Lefkowitz, 82 A.D.2d 882, lv dismissed 55 N.Y.2d 603, 799) which must be upheld if it bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, welfare or morals (see, Town of Huntington v Park Shore Country Day Camp, 47 N.Y.2d 61, rearg denied 47 N.Y.2d 1012; Northern Westchester Professional Park Assocs. v Town of Bedford, 92 A.D.2d 267, affd 60 N.Y.2d 492; Curtiss-Wright Corp. v Town of E. Hampton, 82 A.D.2d 551). The record contains evidence which demonstrates that to permit the proposed use at the subject location would set a precedent since the only office use which has been permitted in the immediate area is by resident practitioners. The Town Board's aim to keep the area residential in character is reasonably related to the public welfare (see, Town Law § 263) and its determination must therefore be upheld. We note that, contrary to the petitioners' assertions, the Nassau County Planning Commission's recommendation and findings in this matter were properly rendered and taken under advisement by the Town Board since the proposed zone change would affect property located within 500 feet of a State road (see, General Municipal Law § 239-m). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.