Opinion
June 16, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The decision of a zoning board will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591). A local zoning board of appeals has considerable discretion in considering an application for a variance and a court's function is limited to setting aside its determination only where the record reveals illegality, arbitrariness or an abuse of discretion (see, Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309; Matter of Marasco v. Luney, 99 A.D.2d 492).
In the instant proceeding, it was necessary for the respondent Solomon Silver to demonstrate that strict compliance with the zoning law would result in practical difficulties in order for a variance to be granted (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, 139, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702; Matter of Village of Bronxville v. Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, affd 1 N.Y.2d 839). Upon review of the factors to be considered by a zoning board in determining whether a variance should be granted (see, Human Dev. Servs. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra; Matter of Wachsberger v. Michalis, 19 Misc.2d 909, affd 18 A.D.2d 921), we find that the subject variance was properly granted. The Zoning Board of Appeals showed that its current interpretation of the relevant section of the Town of Yorktown Zoning Ordinance was consistent with its interpretation with respect to prior applications. As this interpretation is neither unreasonable nor irrational, we decline to disturb it (see, Matter of Frishman v Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823). Bracken, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.