| Matter of London v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town ofHuntington |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02593 [49 AD3d 739] |
| March 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Joann London, Appellant, v Zoning Boardof Appeals of the Town of Huntington, Respondent. |
—[*1] James F. Matthews, Huntington, N.Y., for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Boardof Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated September 21, 2006, which, after a hearing, deniedthe petitioner's application for zoning variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of theSupreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated March 19, 2007, which denied the petitionand dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner, the owner of a 1.1-acre lot in the Town of Huntington, applied to therespondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the ZBA) for areavariances in order to subdivide her property into two lots so that a second house could be built onthe property. The petitioner's property is located in an area that is zoned for one-acre lots. Shesought variances reducing the area requirement to one-half acre and reducing the permitted widthat the setback line from 125 feet to approximately 104 feet for one of the subdivided lots. Since amajority of the ZBA did not vote to grant the application, it was deemed denied (seeTown Law § 267-a [13] [b]; Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. ofAppeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86 [2001]).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court applied the appropriate standard inreviewing the ZBA's determination (see Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v Zoning Bd. of[*2]Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d 86 [2001]). Alocal zoning board has broad discretion in considering variance applications, and judicial reviewis limited to ascertaining whether the action taken by the zoning board was illegal, arbitrary andcapricious, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308[2002]). In this case, the denial of the petitioner's application for area variances was not illegal,arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion in light of, inter alia, the ZBA's conclusion,based upon documentary evidence, that the granting of the proposed variances would lead to adetrimental change in the character of the neighborhood, and the fact that the proposed varianceswere substantial (see Matter of Pecorarov Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608 [2004]; Matter of Merlotto v Town of PattersonZoning Bd. of Appeals, 43 AD3d 926 [2007]).
Further, although "a [determination] of an administrative agency which neither adheres to its. . . prior precedent nor [sets forth] its reasons for reaching a different result onessentially the same facts is arbitrary and capricious" (Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. vZoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 97 NY2d at 93 [internal quotation marksomitted]), the evidence at the hearing established that the circumstances of the prior variancesgranted by the ZBA were distinguishable, and, therefore, the ZBA was not required to set forthan explanation for its departure therefrom (see Matter of Conversions for Real Estate, LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals ofInc. Vil. of Roslyn, 31 AD3d 635 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ.,concur.