Opinion
January 21, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.).
Judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, determination confirmed and petition dismissed in its entirety.
A concern for adequate parking facilities to alleviate traffic congestion is a legitimate purpose for a zoning ordinance (Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, 28 N.Y.2d 449; Matter of Ballroom Prods. v Abrams, 86 A.D.2d 661, lv denied 57 N.Y.2d 601). Therefore, a decision to deny an application for a variance of an off-street parking regulation may only be considered arbitrary "if the hardship caused deprives the property owner of any use of the property to which it is reasonably adapted" (Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v Delany, supra, at p 457). This standard has not been met by petitioners at bar, where they only offered conclusory testimony unsupported by "dollars and cents" evidence (see, Matter of Village Bd. v Jarrold, 53 N.Y.2d 254, 255). Therefore, it cannot be said that appellants' determination was arbitrary. In addition, the conclusion that a variance would result in increased traffic and congestion is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Having found that the Zoning Board's determination has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence, that determination is confirmed in its entirety (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.