DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion ( see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; Matter of Mejias v. Town of Shelter Is. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 298 A.D.2d 458; Matter of Association of Friends of Sagaponack v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southampton, 287 A.D.2d 620, 621). In addition, a zoning board's interpretation of its zoning ordinance is entitled to great deference, and will not be overturned by a court unless unreasonable or irrational ( see Matter of Sposato v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Pelham, 287 A.D.2d 639; Matter of Home Depot USA v. Baum, 243 A.D.2d 476, 478). Any ambiguities in a zoning ordinance must be resolved in favor of the property owner ( see Matter of Hogg v. Cianciulli, 247 A.D.2d 474). The interpretation by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Southampton (hereinafter the Zoning Board) of the subject zoning ordinance, which resulted in the granting of certain variances to allow the respondent Carol Stewart-Black to construct a new house on her property, was reasonable and rational and the Zoning Board's action was not illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
The petitioner's contention regarding a "total area" variance is unpreserved for appellate review ( see Matter of Trident Realty v. Planning Bd. of Inc. Vil. of E. Hampton, Suffolk County,248 A.D.2d 545; Matter of Harder v. Glass, 234 A.D.2d 293; Matter of Johnson v. Coughlin, 205 A.D.2d 537).
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, H. MILLER and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.