IN RE: VN PROPERTY (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay dated July 20, 2023, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for certain area variances, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Conrad D. Singer, J.), dated April 29, 2024.  The order and judgment, inter alia, denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner, the owner of a residential property located in Hicksville, applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Oyster Bay (hereinafter the ZBA) for area variances, inter alia, for certain extensions to the second floor.  Specifically, the petitioner sought variances, among other things, for gross floor area, minimum and total side yard setbacks, and roof pitch.  After a hearing, the ZBA denied the application, and the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the ZBA's determination.  By order and judgment dated April 29, 2024, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.  The petitioner appeals.

Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering variance applications, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board was affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion (see id. § 7803[3];  Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville, 220 AD3d 855, 856–857;  Matter of White Birch Circle Realty Corp. v DeChance, 212 AD3d 729, 730).  Where, as here, a zoning board's determination is made after a public hearing, its determination should be upheld if it has a rational basis and is supported by evidence in the record (see Matter of Bonadonna v Board of Zoning Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Upper Brookville, 220 AD3d at 857;  Matter of Ogden Land Dev., LLC v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Scarsdale, 121 AD3d 695, 696).

In considering an application for area variances, Town Law § 267–b(3)(b) requires a zoning board to engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the petitioner against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the area variances are granted (see Matter of White Birch Circle Realty Corp. v DeChance, 212 AD3d at 730).  In particular, a zoning board must consider:  “(1) whether 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) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;  (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial;  (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district;  and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance” (Town Law § 267–b[3][b] ).  The zoning board, in applying the balancing test, is not required to justify its determination with supporting evidence for each of the five statutory factors as long as its determination balancing the relevant considerations is rational (see Matter of Humphreys v Somers Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 206 AD3d 1000, 1002).

Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record reflects that the ZBA engaged in the requisite balancing of interests and considered the appropriate factors pursuant to Town Law § 267–b(3)(b) in determining the petitioner's application, and the ZBA's determination had a rational basis and was supported by the record (see Matter of Maldonado v Board of Appeals of the Inc. Vil. of Val. Stream, 244 AD3d 1210, 1211–1212;  Matter of White Birch Circle Realty Corp. v DeChance, 212 AD3d at 731).  The ZBA rationally concluded, inter alia, that the requested variances were substantial, that granting the variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and that the petitioner's alleged hardship was self-created.

Thus, the ZBA's determination was not affected by an error of law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding.

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.