IN RE: POPLAR HILL (2008)

 Supreme Court erred in granting the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of respondent, Town of Clarence Zoning Board of Appeals (Board), denying petitioners' application for an area variance.   The Board has broad discretion in determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, and its determination “should be sustained ․ if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” (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).   Here, the Board made its determination after considering the relevant statutory factors and weighing the benefit to petitioners against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood (see Town Law § 267-b [3][b];  Matter of DeGroote v. Town of Greece Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 35 A.D.3d 1177, 1178, 825 N.Y.S.2d 878).  “Giving due deference to the broad discretion of the Board, we cannot conclude that the Board's denial of the variance was either an abuse of discretion or irrational under the circumstances presented” (Pecoraro, 2 N.Y.3d at 614, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: