Opinion
July 12, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.
Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul the determination of respondent on the ground that petitioner failed to show practical difficulties in the use of his land. Such a showing is no longer necessary ( Matter of Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 N.Y.2d 344, 352; see, Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374). Rather, "the Zoning Board, before granting an area variance, must engage in a balancing test, considering the factors outlined in [Town Law § 267-b (3)] * * * and weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community" ( Matter of Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra, at 351-352).
We conclude that the denial of the petition for an area variance is arbitrary and capricious and is not supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of O'Hara v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 226 A.D.2d 537). The record shows that respondent's determination was not the result of a balancing of all of the appropriate factors ( see, Town Law § 267-b; cf., Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra, at 385-386), but was the result of general community opposition ( see, e.g., Matter of Children's Hosp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 181 A.D.2d 1056; Matter of Pine Hill Concrete Mix Corp. v. Town of Newstead Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 161 A.D.2d 1187, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 803).