Opinion
Argued May 3, 1999
June 14, 1999
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of North Hempstead, which, after a hearing granted the petitioners' application for a conditional use permit and parking variance subject to certain conditions, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated May 18, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Forchelli, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino Cohn, LLP, Mineola, N Y (William A. DiConza of counsel), for appellants.
Howard S. Miller, Town Attorney, Manhasset, N.Y. (Kathleen A. Burke of counsel), for respondents.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A zoning board may impose conditions in conjunction with granting a variance, so long as the conditions are reasonable and relate directly to the real estate involved without regard to the owner or occupant ( see, Town Law § 267-b Town[4]; Matter of St. Onge v. Donovan, 71 N.Y.2d 507, 515-516; Matter of Finger v. Levenson, 163 A.D.2d 477). The determination of a zoning board will be upheld provided it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Shorelands, Inc. v. Matthews, 230 A.D.2d 862, 863).
The contested condition imposed by the board, which requires that a reserved parking area be open to all retail and restaurant customers on Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M., is proper because it relates directly to the use of the land and is intended to protect the neighboring commercial properties from the possible adverse effects of the petitioners' operation, such as the anticipated increase in traffic congestion and parking problems, which are particularly difficult on weekends ( see, Matter of St. Onge v. Donovan, supra, at 516; Matter of Nardone v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Lloyd, 144 A.D.2d 807, 809).
The petitioners' remaining contention is without merit.