Opinion
July 6, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The record demonstrates that the petitioner's alleged economic hardship was created by its own disregard of the height limitations imposed by the Zoning Board when it previously granted a variance to the petitioner prior to the commencement of its reconstruction project on the dwelling on the subject parcel. Moreover, it is clear from the record that the denial of the present application for variances would not result in practical difficulties in the utilization of the structure on the parcel since the variances have been sought merely to accommodate a chosen aesthetic design (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 445). Because the Zoning Board's findings were based on substantial evidence in the record and had a rational basis, the determination should be upheld (see, Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 599, rearg denied 42 N.Y.2d 910; McGowan v. Cohalan, 41 N.Y.2d 434, 438). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.