Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Henry, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of East Bloomfield, denying petitioners' application for an area variance to construct a pole barn, was properly sustained. Petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the hilly terrain of their property created practical difficulties which would necessitate the granting of the requested variance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 447; Matter of Biellak v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 75 A.D.2d 435, 438). Further, the hardship and expense involved in relocating the completed barn do not entitle petitioners to a variance. Petitioners proceeded with construction while the variance application was pending, and the Board was entitled to give petitioners' self-created financial hardship little weight in its determination of practical difficulties (see, Matter of Sorrenti v Siegel, 138 A.D.2d 382, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 702; Matter of CDK Rest. v Krucklin, 118 A.D.2d 851; Matter of Wank v Van Etten, 55 A.D.2d 693).
Petitioners' contention that the Board's denial of their application was inconsistent with its own precedent concerning similar applications lacks support in the record. The examples of the Board's past actions submitted by petitioners fail to show "sufficient factual similarity so as to warrant an explanation from the Board" (Knight v Amelkin, 68 N.Y.2d 975, 978). The record also fails to support petitioners' allegations of impropriety in the Board's procedures and decision-making process.