IN RE: Michael HOAG (2006)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clinton, dated May 31, 2004, made after a hearing, upholding a determination of the Town of Clinton Zoning Enforcement Officer that the use of the subject property by Louis Kogon and Alyssa Kogon was consistent with the definition of “contractor storage,” a use permitted under the Town of Clinton Zoning Law, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated September 15, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 “[A] determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it has a rational basis” and is not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732;  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 Corigliano v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of New Rochelle, 18 A.D.3d 750, 795 N.Y.S.2d 722).   Judicial review of a board's decision “is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion” (Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, supra at 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732;  see Matter of Efraim v. Trotta, 17 A.D.3d 463, 464, 792 N.Y.S.2d 621).   Additionally, “a zoning board's interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference, and will not be overturned by a court unless unreasonable or irrational” (Matter of Ferraris v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Southampton, 7 A.D.3d 710, 711, 776 N.Y.S.2d 820).   Moreover, zoning restrictions are “strictly construed [with] any ambiguity resolved in favor of the property owner” (Matter of Toys “R” Us v. Silva, 89 N.Y.2d 411, 421, 654 N.Y.S.2d 100, 676 N.E.2d 862;  see City of New York v. Black Garter, 273 A.D.2d 188, 189, 709 N.Y.S.2d 110).

 Here, both the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Clinton (hereinafter the Zoning Board) who supported and opposed upholding the determination of the Town's Zoning Enforcement Officer concluded that the Town of Clinton Zoning Law contains a vague definition of what constitutes “contractor's storage,” a permitted accessory use.   The Zoning Board reasonably concluded that the Kogons' storage of equipment and vehicles by the respondents Louis Kogon and Alyssa Kogon in their barn and related activities constituted “contractor's storage” (see Matter of Association of Zone A & B Homeowners Subsidiary v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 298 A.D.2d 583, 583-584, 749 N.Y.S.2d 68;  Walter v. Harris, 163 A.D.2d 619, 558 N.Y.S.2d 266).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.