Opinion
October 14, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The court properly concluded that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Additionally, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. The two parcels in question in this case, which were joined at the rear forming a "back-to-back split" formation, were not merged during the short period that they were in common ownership. The parcels were never used in conjunction with each other, nor did one materially enhance the value or utility of the other. Moreover, it does not appear that any neighboring parcels consist of extra long street-to-street plots. Rather, each parcel maintains its single and separate identity, and the Zoning Board's determination must, therefore, be upheld (see, Hemlock Dev. Corp. v McGuire, 35 A.D.2d 567; Matter of Guazzo v Chave, 59 Misc.2d 1050; Matter of Tara Homes v Volz, 44 Misc.2d 275).
Since our function here is to review the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the evidence before it, we have not considered subsequently proffered material which is dehors the record. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.