IN RE: Michael L. HUNTER III (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip dated January 23, 2024, as, after a hearing, denied so much of the petitioners' application as was for certain area variances, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Christopher Modelewski, J.), dated September 6, 2024. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In January 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip (hereinafter the ZBA) granted the petitioners' application for a permit to renovate their existing detached garage, which had been constructed prior to the enactment of the zoning laws. Thereafter, the petitioners demolished the detached garage and constructed a new structure. In a letter dated October 6, 2022, the Town of Islip Building Division, Zoning Department, informed the petitioners that their detached garage had been reviewed and that the newly constructed garage did not conform with the previously granted permit. In November 2022, the petitioners applied to the ZBA, inter alia, for area variances related to their newly constructed garage.

After a hearing, the ZBA denied so much of the petitioners' application as was for area variances related to their newly constructed garage. The petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review that portion of the ZBA's determination. By judgment dated September 6, 2024, the Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioners appeal.

Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Kami Holding Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Westbury, 223 AD3d 811, 812; Matter of Carnelian Farms, LLC v Leventhal, 151 AD3d 844, 845). The determination of a local zoning board is entitled to great deference, and will be set aside only if it is illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or irrational (see Matter of Carella v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Ramapo, 235 AD3d 974, 975; Matter of Gabriele v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Eastchester, 228 AD3d 659, 660).

The determination of the ZBA was not arbitrary and capricious. When a zoning board of appeals makes a determination of whether to grant an area variance to an applicant, the zoning board is required to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit of the grant to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted (see Matter of Massian v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven, 210 AD3d 984, 985; Matter of Morris Motel, LLC v. DeChance, 199 AD3d 687, 688). The zoning board must consider the following factors when making its determination: “whether (1) an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) the requested area variance is substantial; (4) the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) the alleged difficulty was self-created” (Matter of Bernstein v Putnam Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 191 AD3d 779, 781; see Matter of D.P.R. Scrap Metal, Inc. v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead, 187 AD3d 748, 749).

Here, the record demonstrates that the ZBA engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors. The area variances sought by the petitioners were substantial in nature (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 614; Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville, 220 AD3d 855, 858). The evidence before the ZBA also supported its conclusions that granting the requested area variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood (see Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 AD3d 717, 719; Matter of Nataro v. DeChance, 149 AD3d 1081, 1082). Further, as the ZBA determined that no similar variances had been granted, it was permitted to consider the possibility that granting the requested variances could set a negative precedent within the area (see Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 AD3d at 719). Moreover, the ZBA properly found that any hardship was self-created (see Matter of Kami Holding Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Westbury, 223 AD3d at 813; Matter of Latuga v. Giannadeo, 140 AD3d 771, 772).

Finally, the petitioners' contention that so much of the ZBA's determination as denied so much of their application as was for area variances related to their newly constructed garage was arbitrary and capricious because the ZBA had previously granted their application in 2021 regarding their original garage is without merit, as they failed to establish that the ZBA reached a different result on essentially the same facts (see Matter of Harris v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Carmel, 137 AD3d 1130, 1132; Matter of Christian Airmen, Inc. v Town of Newstead Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 115 AD3d 1319, 1322). Therefore, so much of the ZBA's determination as denied so much of the petitioners' application as was for area variances related to their newly constructed garage was rational and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Kami Holding Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Vil. of Westbury, 223 AD3d at 813; Matter of Seaview Assn. of Fire Is., NY, Inc. v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 221 AD3d at 718–719).

GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.