Opinion
February 5, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents-respondents and intervenor-respondent appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Yonkers did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in granting the variances to the intervenor-respondent (see, Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309). Rather, given the irregular size of the buildable area of the property which is traversed by a brook, and in light of the other evidence adduced by the intervenor-respondent before the Zoning Board of Appeals, including a detailed economic feasibility study and a traffic study, it is clear that the determination granting the variances is supported by substantial evidence and has a rational basis (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Malhotra v. Town of Brookhaven, 185 A.D.2d 817).
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Sullivan, JJ., concur.