Opinion
May 22, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
An applicant for an area variance must demonstrate that strict compliance with the zoning law will result in a practical difficulty to the property owner (see, Matter of Doyle v Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 143 A.D.2d 757). This requires a showing by the applicant that "as a practical matter he cannot utilize his property or a structure located thereon `without coming into conflict with certain of the restrictions of the [zoning] ordinance'" (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445). Here, the petitioners did not attempt to comply with the zoning requirements, and their difficulty was self-created. The petitioners proposed a 2,500-square-foot addition to their home that would encompass a 750-square foot pool, a family room expansion, an enclosed walkway from the existing house, and sitting areas. The proposed addition, however, required an area variance that would result in 42.9% more building coverage and 19% more lot coverage than permitted by the Village Code. Further, the petitioners stated they were unwilling to alter their plans to either comply with the zoning regulation or to need a less substantial variance. Rather, the petitioners stated that if the Board did not approve their proposed addition they would not use the site. Under the circumstances, the Board denial of the petitioners' application for an area variance did not constitute an abuse of discretion (Matter of Townwide Props. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.