Opinion
February 17, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).
Ordered, that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The record demonstrated that the petitioner could not build a dwelling on the property "`without coming into conflict with certain of the [zoning] restrictions'" and that the restrictions would create practical difficulties (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, 139, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702, quoting from Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 445). The impact of the desired area variance would have been minimal. The appellants' contentions that the proposed dwelling would create crowding, visual limitations or other out-of-character consequences for the neighborhood are all belied by the record. We have considered all the other contentions raised by the appellants and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.