Opinion
June 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner could utilize the property in question by the construction of an alternatively designed office building without coming into conflict with the minimum parking space requirements of the zoning ordinance. He therefore failed to demonstrate the requisite "practical difficulties" entitling him to the area variances in question (Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 443; see, Matter of Uhrlass v. Davison, 167 A.D.2d 407). In any event, the respondents' conclusion that the public health, safety, and welfare would be served by the strict application of the zoning restriction was supported by the record (see, Matter of Fulling v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30, 34). Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that the small size and cramped design of the proposed parking lot, located as it would be at a highly congested major intersection, would only exacerbate the already hazardous traffic conditions in the area (see, Matter of Siciliano v. Scheyer, 150 A.D.2d 460; see also, 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 23.63, at 255 [3d ed]). We therefore conclude that the Board's determination had a rational basis and was supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309, 314). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.