|
6-15i PROCEDURES
<br />0 E
<br />The standards for grant�iong a variance are often no more specific
<br />'than the general purpose of vaniances itself. The language of the
<br />I
<br />e
<br />cass concerning variances reflect thesie, brola,d standards.
<br />The sole justification for the grant of a variance is that a strict
<br />applicatilion of the terms of' the zoning s�tatute will result: in an
<br />unnecessary hardship, and, even then, the variance can be aranted only
<br />if the spirit of the ordinance may be observed, the public health, the
<br />public safety, anid the general welfare secured and substantial justice
<br />done.... IT]b "bardship'" ... must be "Ot unnecessary," not a "'mere"
<br />hardship, as well as uniliquie or peculiar to [the, property 'in-
<br />'VOlved]. * 0, 476,
<br />716 Richman v., Zoning Bid., of'A,djust,mient, 391 Pa. 254, 1317 A.2d, 280, 283 (1958).
<br />77 .g., Bloard, of Zoning Appeals v., Bond, 300 S-E-2d 7811 (Va. 1,983).
<br />78 Rathkiopf, The, Law, of Zoning and Planning chi. 38.
<br />'7'9 See,, e.g., Pa. tat. Ann. fit. 53, § 10912, (Plurdoin 1972); N.J. St at. Ann.
<br />§1 40:55D-170 ('West Suppi. 1980), a's amended by L. 1979, eh. 216, § 23; L. 1983, ch.
<br />2610, § 13 (West upp. 19184) .
<br />"Bo See 'NIMF. O,Model Zoning, Ordinance § 11-2291(bi)(31), ('1953)1.1 San Francisco,
<br />Cal., City Planning Code §1 3102(d) (1964).
<br />l, urnnConroBl, v. ly oncon 179 Neb. 194, 137 N'.W'.,2d. 800 (1965)
<br />Anderson v. Board of Apipeal,s, 22 Md. App. 28, 322 A. d 220 (Md. Ct. Sp. App.
<br />1974).
<br />112 Seli e.g.,, Mo. Rev., Sitat § 89.090 (1971).
<br />(Release #5, 2/91)
<br />
|