Opinion
December 18, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The provisions of the Islip zoning ordinance pursuant to which the petitioner seeks single and separate ownership treatment for its parcel of land, require "compliance with all zoning requirements other than the one for which the single and separate dispensation is conferred" (Matter of Dittmer v Scheyer, 74 A.D.2d 828). The petitioner's parcel fails to comply with that aforesaid provision, in that there are many nonconformities with respect to requirements other than the one for which the petitioner may receive a "single and separate dispensation". Accordingly, the court properly determined that the petitioner was not entitled to the variances sought as a matter of right (see, Matter of Pellati v Scheyer, 115 A.D.2d 606; Matter of Lakeland Park Estates v Scheyer, 142 A.D.2d 582).
Nor is the petitioner entitled to the variances on the ground that it has established either significant economic hardship or practical difficulty (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 596). "The mere fact that the land could be used more profitably if a variance were granted is insufficient to warrant granting the petitioner's application" (Matter of Iannucci v Casey, 140 A.D.2d 343, 344). Moreover, economic injury was not established on this record where it appeared that the petitioner paid $2 for the property and the petitioner's own expert testified that even without the variances the property was worth about $1,000.
While denial of the variances will unquestionably result in practical difficulties, we find that, in this case, where the petitioner seeks to construct a house on an approximately 11,500-square-foot, triangular parcel, the strict application of the ordinance serves a valid public purpose which outweighs injury to the property owner (see, Matter of De Sena v Board of Zoning Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 105, 108; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, 139). The determination of the respondents was supported by substantial evidence, and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Mangano, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.