Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead (2004 NYSlipOp 03506)

Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead

2004 NYSlipOp 03506

May 4, 2004

Court of Appeals

As corrected through Wednesday, August 11, 2004

[*1]

In the Matter of Inlet Homes Corp., Appellant,
v
Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

Decided May 4, 2004

Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 304 AD2d 758, affirmed.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino & Cohn, LLP, Mineola (Joseph F. Buzzell and James A. Boglioli of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph J. Ra, Town Attorney, Hempstead (Charles S. Kovit of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

Giving due deference to the broad discretion of zoning boards considering applications for area variances (see Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]), the denial by respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of petitioner's application for an area variance to build a single-family dwelling upon an illegally nonconforming substandard parcel had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence. The record supports the Board's finding that the character of the neighborhood is overwhelmingly conforming to the zoning requirements and that [*2]a grant of the area variance would have an adverse effect on the surrounding community. As the court below further recognized, the alleged difficulty here was self-created in that when purchasing the property, petitioner was aware that the Board had previously denied to the contract vendor an area variance for the same lot and under the same circumstances.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.