Opinion
December 9, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.).
Appeal from the judgment dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Said judgment was superseded by the order entered upon reargument.
Order reversed, insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, judgment reversed, petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled and the matter remitted to the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals with directions to grant the petitioner the relief requested, subject to such reasonable conditions and safeguards, if any, as the Board may deem advisable to impose.
The subject lot on which petitioner wishes to build a one-family residence has been held in single and separate ownership since prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance (see, Matter of Dittmer v Epstein, 34 A.D.2d 675; Matter of Macchia v Board of Appeals, 7 Misc.2d 763, 765-766). Thus, any consideration of self-imposed hardship and economic injury was improper (see, Matter of Scavone v Volz, 34 A.D.2d 966; Matter of Point Lookout Civic Assn. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 112 Misc.2d 263, 268; Matter of Macchia v Board of Appeals, 7 Misc.2d 763, 766, supra), as were considerations of the purchase offers of adjacent property owners (see, Matter of Plattner v Sacca, 49 A.D.2d 602, appeal dismissed 37 N.Y.2d 806).
Under the circumstances presented by this record, petitioner was entitled to the relief requested, subject to such reasonable conditions and safeguards, if any, as the Board of Zoning Appeals may deem advisable to impose (see, Matter of Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val., 61 N.Y.2d 892, 894; Matter of Sullivan v Town Bd., 102 A.D.2d 113, 117, appeal dismissed 63 N.Y.2d 952). The Board's determination was, therefore, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.