Opinion
March 25, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Jiudice, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner contends that the decision of the Board was arbitrary and capricious because, among other things, its determination was based upon internal inconsistencies. She further contends that hers is not a case of self-created hardship. We find her contentions to be without merit.
A comparison of the minutes of the public hearing with the written decision of the Board reveals that the apparent internal inconsistencies were a product of inartful drafting rather than substantive findings. For example, the Board did not find that petitioner's substandard parcel met the frontage requirement of the Zoning Ordinance before proceeding to deny a variance based upon the absence of said frontage. Further, we find support in the record for the Board's determination that a granting of the variance would amount to ad hoc planning and create precedent which could well lead to further substandard subdivision of "Rost Acres". Finally, we view this case as one of self-created hardship, as the substandard parcel was created by a deed to petitioner in 1973. The frontage requirement of the Zoning Ordinance had been in effect since 1959 ( see, Matter of Cherry Hill Homes v. Barbiere, 28 N.Y.2d 381).
An area variance may be denied on the ground of self-created hardship, provided it is not the sole factor considered, and provided such denial is not arbitrary and capricious ( see, 2 Anderson, N.Y. Zoning Law and Practice § 23.44 [3d ed]; Matter of Cherry Hill Homes v. Barbiere, supra). The Board's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, and self-created hardship was not the only ground considered. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is affirmed. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.