Case ID: ad3d_19/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Maple Plaza Development, Inc., Appellant, v Harold Fink et al., Respondents.
    [795 NYS2d 903]
   In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Incorporated Village of Kensington Board of Appeals, dated April 14, 2003, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for area and use variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated February 4, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A local zoning board has broad discretion in considering variance applications, and the determination of a zoning board should be sustained upon judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]).

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the denial of the petitioner’s application for variances by the Incorporated Village of Kensington Board of Appeals had a rational basis, and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, supra). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Mastro, JJ., concur.