Opinion
March 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner applied for certain zoning area variances in regard to her parcel of land (measuring 25 feet by 500 feet) in Suffolk County, so that she might construct a single-family dwelling thereon. The parcel is located in an A-1 residence district. Because of the extent of the requested variances, as well as their potential adverse effect on the neighborhood, the application was denied.
The law is well settled that local zoning boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and that judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 314; Barrett v Rose, 152 A.D.2d 525, 526). A determination will ordinarily be sustained if it has a rational basis (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 444; Matter of Harwood v Board of Trustees, 176 A.D.2d 291).
The determination at issue here is neither arbitrary nor capricious but, rather, has a rational basis.
We further disagree with the petitioner's contention that the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Quogue amounted to an unconstitutional taking of her property. The petitioner did not meet her burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the denial of her application deprived her of any use to which the property was reasonably adapted and/or that the property has not already yielded a reasonable return under any of the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance (see, Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438, 445-446; Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, 28 N.Y.2d 449, 457; Matter of Siciliano v Scheyer, 150 A.D.2d 460, 463).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.