Opinion
04-26-2017
In the Matter of Frank NATARO, appellant, v. Paul M. DeCHANCE, etc., et al., respondents.
Richard I. Scheyer, Nesconset, NY, for appellant. Annette Eaderesto, Town Attorney, Farmingville, NY (Todd M. Lewis of counsel), for respondents.
Richard I. Scheyer, Nesconset, NY, for appellant.
Annette Eaderesto, Town Attorney, Farmingville, NY (Todd M. Lewis of counsel), for respondents.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven dated February 19, 2014, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tarantino, Jr., J.), dated March 19, 2015, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Borrok v. Town of Southampton, 130 A.D.3d 1024, 1024, 14 N.Y.S.3d 471 ; Matter of Daneri v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Southold, 98 A.D.3d 508, 509, 949 N.Y.S.2d 180 ; Matter of Matejko v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 77 A.D.3d 949, 949, 910 N.Y.S.2d 123 ). Thus, a zoning board's determination should be sustained on judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by evidence in the record (see Matter of Pecoraro v.
Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 ; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254 ).
In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, a zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Town Law § 267–b [3 ][b] ).
Here, the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the BZA) performed the requisite balancing test, and its conclusion that the detriment to the surrounding neighborhood posed by granting the requested variances outweighed the benefit to the petitioner had a rational basis and was supported by the record (see Matter of Fortunato v. Town of Hempstead Bd. of Appeals, 134 A.D.3d 825, 825, 21 N.Y.S.3d 322 ; Matter of Sacher v. Village of Old Brookville, 124 A.D.3d 902, 904, 3 N.Y.S.3d 69 ). The BZA rationally concluded that the requested variances were substantial in nature, that the petitioner had feasible alternatives that did not require such variances, and that the granting of the variances could set a negative precedent within the neighborhood (see Matter of Affordable Homes of Long Is., LLC v. Monteverde, 128 A.D.3d 1060, 1062, 10 N.Y.S.3d 283 ; Matter of Kearney v. Village of Cold Spring Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 83 A.D.3d 711, 714, 920 N.Y.S.2d 379 ; Matter of Genser v. Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 65 A.D.3d 1144, 1147, 885 N.Y.S.2d 327 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of John Hatgis, LLC v. DeChance, 126 A.D.3d 702, 703, 5 N.Y.S.3d 236 ).