| Matter of Korzenko v Scheyer |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07933 [78 AD3d 701] |
| November 3, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Richard K. Korzenko, Appellant, v RichardScheyer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Alicia S. O'Connor, Town Attorney, Islip, N.Y. (Janet Ford of counsel), forrespondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board ofAppeals of the Town of Islip dated June 17, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner'sapplication for certain area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court,Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered March 12, 2009, which denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances" (Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. v Zoning Bd. ofAppeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 AD3d 62, 67 [2009]; see Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v Zoning Bd. ofAppeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 769 [2004]; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d608 [2004]; Matter of Hurley v ZoningBd. of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville, 69 AD3d 940 [2010]). Judicial review is limited todetermining whether the action taken by the board is illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse ofdiscretion (see Matter of Estate of Gravino vYoung, 75 AD3d 601 [2010]; Matter of Aliano v Oliva, 72 AD3d 944, 947 [2010]). A zoning board'sdetermination shall be upheld if it is rational and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso vOsgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384-385 [1995]; Matter of Aliano v Oliva, 72 AD3d 944 [2010]).
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip(hereinafter the ZBA) engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutoryfactors (see Town Law § 267-b [3] [b]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d374, 384 [1995]). The ZBA's determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious(see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appealsof Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608 [2004]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d374 [1995]; Matter of Aliano v Oliva, 72AD3d 944, 947 [2010]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.