We affirm. The scope of the court's review of the ZBA's determination is limited to determining whether the ZBA's action was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Village of Honeoye Falls v Town of Mendon Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 237 AD2d 929; see also Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308). Where "the determination of the ZBA has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, it is entitled to great deference and must be sustained" ( Matter of Welsh v Town of Amherst Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 270 AD2d 844, 844; see Matter of Farrell v Johnson, 266 AD2d 873; see also Matter of Lloyd v Town of Greece Zoning Bd. of Appeals [appeal No. 1], 292 AD2d 818, 819, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 98 NY2d 691). Here, respondent Town of Lafayette's zoning ordinance allows property zoned "AR," i.e., Agricultural-Residential, to be used for camping purposes upon the issuance of a permit.

We reject the contention of petitioners that the granting of the use variance did not comport with the requirements of Town Law § 267-b and that the ZBA failed to make adequate findings. Where, as here, the determination of the ZBA has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, it is entitled to great deference and must be sustained ( see, Matter of Farrell v.Johnson , 266 A.D.2d 873 [decided Nov. 12, 1999]; Matter ofVillage of Honeoye Falls v. Town of Mendon Zoning Bd. ofAppeals , 237 A.D.2d 929). "[T]he * * * record disclose[s] concrete proof that the landowner could not realize a reasonable return without the [use variance]" (Matter ofVillage Bd. v. Jarrold , 53 N.Y.2d 254, 259; see, Town Law § 267-b [2] [b] [1]; Matter of Geampa v. Walck [appeal No. 2], 222 A.D.2d 1072; cf., Matter of Conte v. Town of Norfolk Zoning Bd.of Appeals , 261 A.D.2d 734,736).

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition and annulling the determination of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Kiantone (ZBA), which granted intervenor's application for use and area variances to permit the construction of a cellular telephone cell site. The determination of the ZBA is entitled to great deference and must be sustained where, as here, it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Village of Honeoye Falls v. Town of Mendon Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 237 A.D.2d 929; Matter of Geampa v. Walck [appeal No. 2], 222 A.D.2d 1072). Intervenor presented evidence that the proposed construction would not interfere with electrical appliances or devices, diminish property values or create health risks. In addition, intervenor "established that the erection of the cell site would enable it to remedy gaps in its service area that currently prevent it from providing adequate service to its customers in the [Kiantone] area" (Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v. Rosenberg, 82 N.Y.2d 364, 373-374).

The record establishes that the Board made its determination after considering the appropriate factors and weighing the benefit to petitioners against "the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community" if the variance were granted (Village Law § 7-712-b [3] [b]; see, Matter of Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 N.Y.2d 344, 351-352, rearg denied 87 N.Y.2d 1056; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384). The determination denying an area variance "rests comfortably on a rational basis and substantial evidence" ( Matter of Doyle v. Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592, 596), and the court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Board in annulling that determination ( see, Matter of Village of Honeoye Falls v. Town of Mendon Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 237 A.D.2d 929). We modify the judgment, therefore, by dismissing the petition in its entirety.

as deference is mandated "even if an opposite conclusion might logically be drawn." Vil. of Honeoye Falls v. Town of Mendon Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 237 A.D.2d 929, 930 (4th Dept 1997) (dismissing petition). See also Matter of Beck-Nichols v. Bianco, 20 N.Y.3d 540, 559 (2013) (noting "extremely deferential" standard of review).

It simply cannot be gainsaid that local zoning boards have substantial discretion in considering applications for such things as permits and variances. Judicial review of a zoning board determination is limited to deciding whether the action taken by the zoning board is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion ( Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. Of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309; see Matter of Rosof v. Bailin, 237 AD2d 612; Matter of Sycamore Run, Inc. v. Foss, 237 AD2d 929). The determination of the zoning board will ordinarily be sustained if the determination has a rational basis and if it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, supra at 444; Matter of Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Village of Pleasantville, 237 AD2d 445; Matter of Bergen v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Putnam Valley, 237 AD2d 587, app. dismissed 90 NY2d 828, lv. denied 91 NY2d 806; Matter of McGlasson Realty Inc. v. Town of Patterson, 234 AD2d 462).