Opinion
January 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Dickinson, J.).
Petitioner, the owner of lakefront property in Putnam County, applied to respondent for an area variance. The lot involved currently contains a one-family residence and boat-house. Petitioner wished to erect a 28-foot by 40-foot garage within five feet of his northerly property line. The garage would house petitioner's four cars, a motorhome, two trailers, three boats, three jetskis, a wetjet, snow scoots, a snowmobile, two all terrain vehicles, a dumptruck, plow and a backhoe. Petitioner sought a 35-foot variance of a 40-foot sideyard setback. Respondent granted petitioner's request to the extent of allowing a 20-foot variance, thereby enabling him to construct a 28-foot by 20-foot garage.
This CPLR article 78 proceeding, instituted by petitioner, charged that respondent's determination was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Supreme Court disagreed, as do we.
Petitioner's claimed hardship stems from a wish to store a multitude of cars, recreational vehicles and sporting equipment on his property. A hardship created by the landowner's personal desires is not generally the type of "practical difficulty" that warrants an area variance (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 446; Matter of Biellak v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 75 A.D.2d 435, 438-439). As petitioner's asserted hardship lacks any nexus to the use of the property as a residence, a larger variance than that which has been accorded is unwarranted (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra).
And, petitioner's contrary contention notwithstanding, aesthetic factors did not impermissibly influence respondent's determination (see, Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 105, 109). Rather, respondent carefully considered the substantial size of the variance request, the potential negative impacts on neighboring properties (which might not always be owned by such accommodating individuals), the manner in which the hardship arose and the availability of an alternative method of addressing the problem (cf., Matter of Putrino v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 115 A.D.2d 932, 933). There is therefore no reason to disturb respondent's prudent middle-ground solution (see, Nardone v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 144 A.D.2d 807, 808).
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Casey, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.