Petitioner challenged the zoning board’s denial of area variances. The Court found that the Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals performed the requisite balancing test: weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community. The Board rationally found that granting the variances would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, to the extent that the allegedly similar applications identified by the petitioners actually involved similar facts, the Board provided a rational explanation for reaching a different result here. Petitioners also failed to show that these different results constituted precedent from which the Board was required to explain a departure. Accordingly, the court held that the Supreme Court properly denied the CPLR article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Fortunato v Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals, 2015 WL 8232224 (NYAD 2 Dept. 12/9/2015)