Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We find that at the time the petitioner acquired the parcel in question, it was chargeable with constructive knowledge that the zoning ordinance prohibited the use of the land for the purpose for which it was purchased. Accordingly, the respondent Zoning Board properly denied the petitioner's application for a use variance to relieve such self-created hardship (see, Matter of Clark v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 301 N.Y. 86, 89, rearg denied 301 N.Y. 681, cert denied 340 U.S. 933; Matter of Carriage Works Enters. v. Siegel, 118 A.D.2d 568; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 23.30).
We note that our decision does not affect the petitioner's right, if it be so advised, to commence an action against the Town of Oyster Bay for a judgment declaring the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to the parcel in question (see, Matter of Overhill Bldg. Co. v. Delany, 28 N.Y.2d 449; Matter of National Merritt v. Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.