Here, the Zoning Board improperly placed the burden on Sand Land to establish that the certificate of occupancy issued to it in July 2011 was proper. As the proponents of the revocation of the certificate of occupancy issued to Sand Land, Phair, Gilman and Doggwiler had the burden at the hearing held by the Zoning Board to establish that the certificate of occupancy was improperly issued by the Chief Building Inspector (Matter of Letourneau v Town of Berne, 89 AD3d 1202, 1203, 931 NYS2d 810 [3d Dept 2011]; Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 AD3d 1170, 1171, 926 NYS2d 165 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter of Hariri v Keller, 34 AD3d 585, 586, 826 NYS2d 310 [2d Dept 2006]). Contrary to the conclusory allegations by the attorney for Phair, Gilman and Doggwiler, the evidence presented to the Zoning Board failed to demonstrate the 2011 certificate of occupancy, permitting the receipt and processing of trees, brush, stumps, leaves and other clearing debris into topsoil or mulch, and the storage, sale and delivery of sand, mulch, topsoil and wood chips as preexisting uses, was improperly issued to Sand Land (see Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 AD3d 1170, 926 NYS2d 165). Significantly, Phair, Gilman and Doggwiler presented an aerial photograph and a report of Steven Kaplan to support their claim that no mining activity was conducted before 1966, and argued the absence of documentation with the Town or the DEC regarding the recycling of clearing debris and the sale of soil, mulch and wood chips on site prior to 1972 proved such activi
Preliminarily, we note that the Supreme Court should not have transferred this proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g), as the petition did not raise a question of substantial evidence (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384; Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 AD3d 1170, 1170). Nevertheless, this Court will retain jurisdiction and decide the merits of the petition in the interest of judicial economy (see Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 AD3d at 1170; Matter of Davis v Roldan, 54 AD3d 944, 945).
that Sand Land met this burden, when the matter went for review before the ZBA, the ZBA was authorized to consider the Chief Building Inspector's determination de novo and make such a "determination as in its opinion ought to have been made in the matter" (Town Law § 267–b[1] ; see Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 A.D.3d 154, 159, 881 N.Y.S.2d 496 ; Matter of Board of Architectural Review & Historic Preserv. of Vil. of Southampton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Southampton, 279 A.D.2d 523, 524, 719 N.Y.S.2d 663 ). When presenting the matter to the ZBA, the neighbors only had to show that the evidence submitted by Sand Land in support of its application was insufficient to demonstrate that the challenged uses existed on the subject property prior to the adoption of the prohibitive zoning ordinance (see Matter of Keller v. Haller, 226 A.D.2d at 640, 641 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; cf. Matter of Letourneau v. Town of Berne, 89 A.D.3d 1202, 931 N.Y.S.2d 810 ; Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165 ).The remaining contentions of Sand Land and WS&G are without merit.
"In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion" (Matter of Arceri v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 AD3d 411, 412; see Matter of Ogden Land Dev., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Scarsdale, 121 AD3d 695, 696; Matter of La Russo v Neuringer, 105 AD3d 743, 743; Matter of Sanantonio v Lustenberger, 73 AD3d 934, 935). Where, as here, a determination is made by a zoning board of appeals after a public hearing, the determination of the zoning board should be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4]; Matter of Ogden Land Dev., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Scarsdale, 121 AD3d at 696; Matter of Haberman v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 AD3d 1170, 1171; Matter of Rusciano v Ross, 78 AD3d 715, 716).
“In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Arceri v. Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 A.D.3d 411, 412, 791 N.Y.S.2d 149 ; see Matter of Ogden Land Dev., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Scarsdale, 121 A.D.3d 695, 696, 994 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; Matter of La Russo v. Neuringer, 105 A.D.3d 743, 743, 962 N.Y.S.2d 633 ; Matter of Sanantonio v. Lustenberger, 73 A.D.3d 934, 935, 901 N.Y.S.2d 109 ). Where, as here, a determination is made by a zoning board of appeals after a public hearing, the determination of the zoning board should be upheld if it has a rational basis supported by evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4] ; Matter of Ogden Land Dev., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Scarsdale, 121 A.D.3d at 696, 994 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165 ; Matter of Rusciano v. Ross, 78 A.D.3d 715, 716, 910 N.Y.S.2d 147 ). In this proceeding, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Board) held a public hearing and heard testimony from the petitioner's counsel, a Deputy Town Attorney, the Town's Director of Building, Planning, and Zoning, and an employee from a waste management facility in the Town.
Rather, the question before us is “whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational” (Matter of Greencove Assoc., LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of N. Hempstead, 87 A.D.3d at 1067, 929 N.Y.S.2d 325 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeCPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 769–771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). Nevertheless, since the full administrative record is before us, in the interest of judicial economy, we will decide the proceeding on the merits ( see Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165; Matter of Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 824, 898 N.Y.S.2d 237; Matter of Zupa v. Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 A.D.3d 957, 958, 864 N.Y.S.2d 142).
Glen Cove Zoning Board of Appeals dated September 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for area variances, the City of Glen Cove Zoning Board of Appeals appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (J. Murphy, J.), dated September 12, 2013, which granted the petition, aned the determination, and remitted the matter to the City of Glen Cove Zoning Board of Appeals for the issuance of the appropriate variances.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances (see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 ; Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 A.D.3d 62, 67, 886 N.Y.S.2d 442 ), and judicial review is limited to determining whether “ ‘the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure’ ” (Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 1170, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165, quoting Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 ; Matter of Chynn v. DeChance, 110 A.D.3d 993, 973 N.Y.S.2d 328 ). In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board must consider “the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant” (General City Law § 81–b[4][b] ; see Matter of Steiert Enters., Inc. v. City of Glen Cove, 90 A.D.3d 764, 766, 934 N.Y.S.2d 475 ; Matter of Cacsire v. City of White Plains Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 A.D.3d 1135, 1137, 930 N.Y.S.2d 54 ; Matter of Margaritis v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Flower Hill, 32 A.D.3d 855, 856, 821 N.Y.S.2d 611 ).
Judicial review of a determination of a zoning board of appeals “is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion” ( Matter of Arceri v. Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 A.D.3d 411, 412, 791 N.Y.S.2d 149; see Matter of La Russo v. Neuringer, 105 A.D.3d 743, 962 N.Y.S.2d 633; Matter of Rusciano v. Ross, 78 A.D.3d 715, 716, 910 N.Y.S.2d 147). Where, as here, a zoning board's determination is made after a public hearing, its determination should be upheld if it has a rational basis and is supported by evidence in the record ( see Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384 n. 2, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254; Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165; Matter of Campbell v. Town of Mt. Pleasant Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 84 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 923 N.Y.S.2d 699; Matter of Rusciano v. Ross, 78 A.D.3d 715, 716, 910 N.Y.S.2d 147). Although a zoning board's interpretation of a zoning code is entitled to great deference ( see Matter of BBJ Assoc., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Kent, 65 A.D.3d 154, 160, 881 N.Y.S.2d 496; Matter of Jamil v. Village of Scarsdale Planning Bd., 24 A.D.3d 552, 554, 808 N.Y.S.2d 260), its interpretation “is not entitled to unquestioning judicial deference, since the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the law is with the court” ( Matter of Baker v. Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 20 A.D.3d 522, 523–524, 799 N.Y.S.2d 541 [internal quotation marks omitted
Rather, the question before us is “whether the determination was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or was irrational” (Matter of Greencove Assoc., LLC v. Town Bd. of the Town of N. Hempstead, 87 A.D.3d at 1067, 929 N.Y.S.2d 325 [internal quotation marks omitted]; seeCPLR 7803[3]; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 769–771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). Nevertheless, since the full administrative record is before us, in the interest of judicial economy, we will decide the proceeding on the merits ( see Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165;Matter of Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 824, 898 N.Y.S.2d 237;Matter of Zupa v. Board of Trustees of Town of Southold, 54 A.D.3d 957, 958, 864 N.Y.S.2d 142).
We affirm. Local zoning boards have broad discretion, and “judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion” ( Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732). Accordingly, “ ‘[c]ourts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure’ ” ( Matter of Haberman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of E. Hampton, 85 A.D.3d 1170, 1171, 926 N.Y.S.2d 165, quoting Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404; see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d at 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732). In determining whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board must consider “the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant” (General City Law § 81–b[4][b]; see Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254; Matter of Genser v. Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 65 A.D.3d 1144, 1146–1147, 885 N.Y.S.2d 327; Matter of Pasceri v. Gabriele, 29 A.D.3d 805, 805–806, 815 N.Y.S.2d 218; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 770–771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). The zoning board should also consider “(i) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment t