From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Inguant v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-03401, 2002-09276

Submitted March 21, 2003.

April 28, 2003.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven, dated September 5, 2001, which denied two area variances requested by the petitioners, the appeals are from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated January 15, 2002, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered March 1, 2002, which confirmed the determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

John N. Prudenti, Mastic, N.Y., for appellants.

Karen M. Wilutis, Town Attorney, Medford, N.Y. (Leigh Carrol of counsel), for respondents.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by using a 200-foot radius map in evaluating the impact that the requested variances would have (see e.g. Matter of Staten Corp. v. Trotta, 278 A.D.2d 328; Matter of Wantagh Woods Neighborhood Assn. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 208 A.D.2d 935; Matter of Rider v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 172 A.D.2d 673; Green v. Lo Grande, 96 A.D.2d 524), or in determining that the granting of the variances would result in a detriment to the community. Furthermore, the requested 71% and 73% variances were unquestionably substantial (see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Inguant v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re Inguant v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH INGUANT, ET AL., appellants, v. BOARD OF ZONING…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 28, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 831 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 860

Citing Cases

Josato v. Wright

ment to neighborhood that would be caused by such grant, including an undesirable change in the character of…

In the Matter of Efraim v. Trotta

Accordingly, "a determination of a zoning board will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported…