Opinion
June 3, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner purchased two adjoining parcels of land located in Scarsdale, New York, in 1985 for the price of $250,000. One parcel was improved with a house and the other was unimproved, and both were located in an R-4 zoning district. Thereafter, the petitioner sought to construct a house on the unimproved parcel but was required to apply for an area variance because the parcel failed to meet the general area and frontage requirements of the R-4 zone or of the limited exception provided by the Village of Scarsdale Zoning Code § 310-17 (A). The respondent denied the application, and its denial was confirmed by the Supreme Court, Westchester County.
The petitioner failed to show that strict compliance with the zoning laws would cause him "practical difficulties" (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 445; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 314; Matter of Spandorf v Board of Appeals, 167 A.D.2d 546). The entire parcel, consisting of Lots 61 and 62, has been successfully utilized for years as a single unit containing one residence. Indeed, the petitioner himself had used the residence for some four years prior to applying for the variance. The record shows that the property as a whole constitutes a valuable and useful parcel containing a desirable home with plenty of free space.
Furthermore, the petitioner also failed to show that he would suffer any "significant economic injury" (Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 596) without the variance (see, Matter of Hansen v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 158 A.D.2d 689, 690). "`[T]he mere fact that a parcel could be used more profitably if the variance were granted is insufficient to warrant granting the petitioner's application'" (Matter of Vivest Bldg. Corp. v Auwarter, 152 A.D.2d 582, 584, quoting Matter of Graziano v Scalafani, 143 A.D.2d 664, 666). The evidence submitted by the petitioner regarding the predominant value of the homes in the area revealed that homes similar to his were valued at about $350,000, some $100,000 more than the amount for which he purchased the combined Lots 61 and 62. Although the petitioner could improve Lot 62, sell it at a greater price, and turn a larger profit if granted the variance, this does not establish significant economic injury.
Accordingly, the respondent's denial was premised on a rational basis, was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary, illegal, nor an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). Balletta, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.