Opinion
February 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
An applicant for an area variance must demonstrate that strict compliance with the zoning law will result in a practical difficulty to the property owner (see, Matter of Doyle v Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Townwide Props. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 143 A.D.2d 757). This requires a showing by the applicant that "as a practical matter he cannot utilize his property or a structure located thereon `without coming into conflict with certain of the restrictions of the [zoning] ordinance'" (Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra, at 445). In this case, the only permissible use for the subject parcel is the erection of a single-family dwelling, which cannot be accomplished under the existing zoning requirements. Under the circumstances, denial by the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven of the petitioner's application for an area variance constituted an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Townwide Props. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.