Opinion
March 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioners desired to subdivide an existing plot located on Shorecliff Place in Great Neck so that Lawrence Hofstein could build a house for his family adjacent to that of his mother. While the proposed subdivided plot far exceeded the minimum square footage for a buildable plot, it was approximately 20 inches short of the required 65 feet of frontage. Thus, the petitioners sought a variance of about 1.68 feet. The respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead (hereinafter the Board) denied the application.
Although a zoning board is given discretion in determining whether or not to grant a variance, the Board's determination must have a rational basis and be supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman, 43 N.Y.2d 598). We agree with the Supreme Court's finding that the Board's denial of the petitioners' application for an area variance in this case was arbitrary and capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441).
Strict application of the zoning regulations in this case will serve no valid public purpose outweighing the injury to the petitioners. The record demonstrates that the petitioners cannot build a dwelling on the property "`without coming into conflict with certain [zoning restrictions]'", and the restrictions would create "`practical difficulties'" (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445, quoting from 3 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, ch 45, § 1 [4th ed]; Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 143 A.D.2d 757; Matter of Lanzilotta Teramo Dev. Corp. v Lazarus, 127 A.D.2d 767; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702). Not only is a variance of 20 inches with regard to a 65-foot frontage requirement de minimis (see, Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra), the subdivided plot greatly exceeds all the other zoning requirements, including total square footage and side yard clearance. Moreover, without the variance, a plot capable of sustaining as many as three homes would be extremely underutilized to the detriment of the petitioners without any corresponding benefit to the community. In fact, the record is devoid of any evidence that the proposed variance would have an adverse impact upon the surrounding area.
Accordingly, the Board's denial of the application for a variance was arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra), and the Supreme Court properly annulled and vacated the Board's determination. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.