Opinion
2002-06410
Submitted May 9, 2003.
May 27, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven dated November 7, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered June 17, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
John N. Prudenti, Mastic, N.Y., for appellant.
Karen M. Wilutis, Town Attorney, Medford, N.Y. (Leigh Carrol of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the petition to annul the determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Board) denying the petitioner's application for area variances. In reaching its determination, the Board engaged in the required balancing test, "weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance[s] [were] granted" (Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 307, citing Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 382, 384). Its decision to deny the application was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discretion, and "has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, supra at 308).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FRIEDMANN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.