| Matter of Picarelli v Karl |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04877 [51 AD3d 1028] |
| May 27, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard Picarelli, Appellant, v Terry J.Karl et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Karen M. Wilutis, Town Attorney, Farmingville, N.Y. (John T. Leonard and David Moran ofcounsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Boardof Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven, dated May 8, 2007, which denied the petitioner'sapplication for area variances in connection with an application for a subdivision of its propertyinto two lots, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Burke, J.), dated November 9, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In reaching its determination denying the petitioner's application, the respondents engaged inthe balancing test prescribed by Town Law § 267-b (3) (b), and properly found that (1) therequested variances for lot size, rear yards, and front yards were substantial, (2) the granting ofthe requested variances would set adverse precedents for similar-sized lots in the area (seeMatter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608 [2004];Matter of Rodrigues v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Sleepy Hollow, 21 AD3d 1108[2005]), (3) granting the proposed variances would increase the density of the area in derogationof the clear intent of the zoning code to ensure remaining lots in the area capable of developmentconform to zoning requirements, (4) there was evidence of recent flooding of the surroundingarea attributable to new development, (5) the petitioner had other options such as building onehouse on the property in conformance with the proposed variances, and (6) the hardship wasself-created (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 309 [2002]; Matter ofRivero v Voelker, 38 AD3d 784 [2007]). There is no evidence that the [*2]applicable zoning regulations were confiscatory (see Matter ofKhan v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 NY2d 344 [1996]).
Since the determination under review was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion, andwas supported by a rational basis (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308[2002]), it must be sustained. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.