Opinion
March 16, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that local Zoning Boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and the judicial function is limited to reviewing whether the action taken by the Board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 599; Human Dev. Servs. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702). Given petitioner Joseph Silveri's background in real estate development and construction, and owing to the fact that he and his copetitioner previously applied for a variance for a structure which violated the rear yard set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance, the petitioners are certainly chargeable with knowledge of the applicable rear yard set-back requirements of the zoning ordinance. Thus, it cannot be said that the Zoning Board abused its discretion when it denied the petitioners' requests for substantial rear yard set-back variances based upon their alleged good-faith reliance upon an unidentified contractor.
Finally, we note that the Board did not violate the petitioners' due process rights when it reviewed pertinent Building Department records after giving the petitioners notice of its intention to do so. A Zoning Board is not required to follow formal rules of evidence (see, Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v. Rosenfeld, 91 A.D.2d 190; Matter of Von Kohorn v Morrell, 9 N.Y.2d 27, 32), and has the legal right to conduct its own investigation (see, Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v. Rosenfeld, supra). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.