Opinion
July 1, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Rubenfeld, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The record sufficiently sets forth the facts and the bases upon which respondent's granting of the area variances rested, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309). The fact that the property owner's hardship was self-created, although a factor, does not preclude the granting of area variances ( Matter of De Sena v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 105). Since the property did not meet minimum lot area requirements because of the municipality's relocation of a certain street prior to both petitioner's purchase of the property and the enactment of the zoning ordinance, self-created hardship existed only in the sense that the property was purchased after the lot was rendered substandard. Moreover, the property will be undevelopable without area variances ( see, Matter of New York Inst. of Technology v Tanen, 112 A.D.2d 164). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.