Opinion
2012-08-29
In the Matter of DAG LAUNDRY CORP., et al., petitioners, v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, respondent.
Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael H. Sahn, Chris J. Coschignano, and John P. Christopher of counsel), for petitioners. Richard S. Finkel, Town Attorney, Manhasset, N.Y. (Jamie Lang of counsel), for respondent.
Sahn Ward Coschignano & Baker, PLLC, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael H. Sahn, Chris J. Coschignano, and John P. Christopher of counsel), for petitioners. Richard S. Finkel, Town Attorney, Manhasset, N.Y. (Jamie Lang of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead dated May 12, 2010, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners' application for, inter alia, a use variance and, in effect, denied, as academic, the petitioners' application for an area variance.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Initially, we note that, as the parties contend, the Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) ( see Matter of Navaretta v. Town of Oyster Bay, 72 A.D.3d 823, 824, 898 N.Y.S.2d 237). Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we will decide the proceeding on the merits ( see id. at 824, 898 N.Y.S.2d 237).
Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances, and their determinations will generally be set aside “only if the zoning board acted illegally, arbitrarily, abused its discretion, or succumbed to generalized community opposition” (Matter of Ramundo v. Pleasant Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 41 A.D.3d 855, 858, 839 N.Y.S.2d 189). The determinations will be sustained if they have a rational basis in the record ( see Edwards v. Davison, 94 A.D.3d 883, 941 N.Y.S.2d 873). Here, the denial of the petitioners' application for a use variance pursuant to Town Law § 267–b(2)(b) has a rational basis in the record, and is not illegal, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or the product of generalized community opposition ( see Matter of Westbury Laundromat, Inc. v. Mammina, 62 A.D.3d 888, 892, 879 N.Y.S.2d 188;Matter of Ramundo v. Pleasant Val. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 41 A.D.3d at 858, 839 N.Y.S.2d 189).
In light of our determination with respect to the use variance, we need not address the petitioners' remaining contention regarding the area variance.