## Facts

- A property owner held an irregular, roughly five-acre tract in the Village of Lynbrook, New York, fronting Merrick Road.
- The zoning ordinance classified the first 150 feet of depth along Merrick Road as commercial; the remainder of the tract (the larger portion) was zoned for Class A residential use.
- The owner sought permission to build a large roller skating rink, a permitted commercial use, but designed so the structure and related uses would extend beyond the commercial strip into the residentially zoned portion.
- The proposed building was substantial in size and height, and nearby residents objected, claiming the project would damage residential living conditions; about 600 residents protested.
- The Village Board of Appeals granted a variance allowing the commercial use in the residential zone, citing “unnecessary hardship” and reasons including: split zoning of the parcel, access to the rear portion only through the commercial frontage, and asserted parking and access benefits if the rink extended into the residential area.
- Neighboring residential owners sought judicial review; the lower courts confirmed the Board’s action, and the challengers appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the record showed the required elements of “unnecessary hardship” authorizing a zoning board to grant a use variance permitting a commercial roller rink to extend into a residential zone.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the order confirming the variance and annulled the Board’s determination.
- The court held the owner failed to prove “unnecessary hardship” sufficient to justify a use variance.
- The court concluded the Board exceeded its authority by granting the variance on a showing of convenience and preferred site design rather than legally sufficient hardship.
- A dissent would have upheld the Board’s action.

## Legal Principles

- A use variance based on “unnecessary hardship” requires a stringent showing; a desire for a more convenient or profitable configuration is insufficient.
- “Unnecessary hardship” requires proof that, as zoned, the property cannot yield a reasonable return from permitted uses.
- The hardship must be attributable to conditions unique to the property rather than conditions common to the area or district.
- A variance should not be granted where it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, particularly by permitting commercial intrusion into a residential zone.
- Zoning boards’ variance power is limited and may not be used to functionally revise the legislative zoning plan through ad hoc exceptions.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals invalidated a use variance allowing a commercial roller skating rink to extend into a residential district, holding that claimed access and parking advantages did not establish the strict “unnecessary hardship” required to depart from residential zoning limits.


Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 24 N.E.2d 851 (N.Y. 1939)