Monroe Beach, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach

• Decision Date: 30 March 2010
• Citation: 898 N.Y.S.2d 194,71 A.D.3d 1150
• Parties: In the Matter of MONROE BEACH, INC., appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF LONG BEACH, New York, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

898 N.Y.S.2d 194

71 A.D.3d 1150

In the Matter of MONROE BEACH, INC., appellant,

v.ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF LONG BEACH, New York, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 30, 2010.

Flynn & Flynn, Huntington, N.Y. (Robert J. Flynn, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Corey E. Klein, Corporation Counsel, Long Beach, N.Y., for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, New York, dated October 24, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), entered April 23, 2009, 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 Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). Thus, the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it is not illegal, has a rational basis, and is not arbitrary and capricious ( see Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, 633 N.Y.S.2d 259, 657 N.E.2d 254; Matter of Gallo v. Rosell, 52 A.D.3d 514, 515, 859 N.Y.S.2d 675). "When reviewing the determinations of a Zoning Board, courts consider 'substantial evidence' only to determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board's determination" ( Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d at 385, n. 2, 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 General City Law § 81-b[4][b]; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d at 773, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98). In making that determination, the zoning board must also consider whether: (1) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by somemethod feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) the requested area variance is substantial; (4) the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) thealleged difficulty was self-created ( see General City Law § 81-b[4][b] ).

Here, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, New York (hereinafter the ZBA), engaged in the required balancing test, and its denial of the petitioner's application for area variances had a rational basis, and was not illegal or arbitrary and capricious. The ZBA's findings that the requested variances were substantial, would result in a detriment to nearby properties, and would have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the surrounding neighborhood were supported by hearing testimony and documentary evidence ( see Matter of DiPaolo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town/Vil. of Harrison, 62 A.D.3d 792, 793, 879 N.Y.S.2d 507). Moreover, its finding that the alleged difficulty...