Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6-13 <br /> <br />PROCEDURES <br /> <br />~ 6.03[1] <br /> <br />which a land use proceeding is conducted. In practice, these <br />proceedings are guided more by the hour of the day, the length of <br />the docket, and the varying dispositions of the lay members of <br />zoning boards. <br />Despite these qualifications, if the right to cross-examination <br />exists, it is not satisfied by allowing the applicant to call a person as a <br />hostile witness after the opposition has concluded direct testimo- <br />ny.66 In addition, a requirement that the applicant ask questions <br />only through the zoning board is unjustifiable.67 <br /> <br />Research Reference: For further discussion, see Rathkopf, The Law <br />of Zoning and Planning ch. 37. <br /> <br />~ 6.03 Area and Use Variances <br /> <br />[1] Generally <br /> <br />Section 7 of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act provides that <br />a board of adjustment has the power68 <br /> <br />to authorize upon appeal in special cases such variance from the terms <br />of the ordinance, as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, <br />owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of <br />the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship; and so that the <br />spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. <br /> <br />A variance is defined as an authorization for construction or <br />maintenance of a building or structure or for the establishment or <br />maintenance of a use of land which is prohibited by a zoning <br />ordinance.69 The definition incorporates two separate types of <br />variances: area variance and use variance. The former allows <br />construction or maintenance of a building where the natural <br />character or condition of the property would otherwise prevent <br />construction in conformance with the applicable ordinance. In this <br />regard, area variances involve such matters as setback lines, frontage <br /> <br />66 Somerset v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 245 Md. 52, 225 A.2d 294 <br />(1967). <br />67 E.g., Wadell v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 136 Conn. 1,68 A.2d 152 (1949); E & <br />E Hauling, Inc. v. County of DuPage, 77 Ill. App. 3d 1017,396 N.E.2d 1260 (1979). <br />68 Sometimes called the board of zoning appeals. See infra ~ 4.04[11-121. <br />69 See generally 3A Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning ~ 38.01 (4th ed. <br />1984). <br /> <br />(Release #5, 2/91) <br />