Opinion
August 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to the zoning code of the Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach, the petitioners, the owners of a vacant parcel, were precluded from installing a tennis court in the front of their parcel. The petitioners applied for a variance, but the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach (hereinafter the Board) denied their application.
We agree with the court's determination that the denial of the petitioners' application did not have a rational basis and was arbitrary (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441). The petitioners established that six other similarly-situated properties had front-yard tennis courts. However, the Board based its denial on its mere "recollection" that in those other properties, the existence of a residence precluded the installing of tennis courts in their back yards and thus its denial was not supported by the evidence. In any event, even if shown that the other owners' properties were, unlike the petitioners' property, already improved, this would not be a "reasonable" explanation as it would not show that those other owners had shown the prerequisite "practical difficulties" warranting the granting of a variance (see, Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591; Matter of Nammack v. Krucklin, 149 A.D.2d 596; Human Dev. Servs. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, 139, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702; Jarmain v. Hamburg, 72 A.D.2d 575).
In light of the above determination, we need not reach the petitioners' claim as to the validity of the applicable provision of the zoning code. Thompson, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.