pf_03377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6-17 PROCEDURES ~ 6.03[2] Rather than precisely defining practical difficulty, courts have a tendency to list the criteria for ascertaining its existence. One court found that "practical difficulty" is present where the requested dimensional change is minimal and the harm to the applicant denied a variance will be greater than the probable effect on neighboring properties if the variance is granted.8s In that case, the court determined that the board of adjustment should consider the following factors in weighing the costs and benefits of granting a variance: the nature of the zone in which the property lies, the character of the immediate vicinity and the uses intended therefore, whether, if the restrictions were removed, neighboring property would be seriously affected, and whether, if restrictions were not removed, they would create unnecessary hardship or exceptional practical difficulty for the owner in relation to his efforts to make normal improvements given the property's permitted use. Other courts have laid down similar guidelines. Courts have found that practical difficulty exists if the existing ordinance unreasonably prevents the property owner from using the prop~rty or unreasonably burdens the property owner who attempts to use the property as allowed.86 Other courts have been more specific finding practical difficulty to exist when denying the variance would force the owner to suffer substantial economic expense in his effort to comply with the existing ordinance. In other words, the ordi- nance precludes the property from yielding a reasonable return.87 A few very demanding courts hold a practical difficulty exists only when a "taking" has occurred.88 Courts upholding the denial of a variance employ similarly broad or vague principles. Thus, a variance may be denied when it would violate the ordinance's spirit, threaten the public's safety and welfare, or alter the neighborhood's character.89 Moreover, an 8S Board of Adjustment v. Kwik-Check Realty, Inc., 389 A.2d 1289 (Del. 1978). 86 McLean v. Soley, 270 Md. 208, 310 A.2d 783 (1973). 87 Wilcox v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 N.Y.2d 249, 270 N.Y.S.2d 569, 21 i N.E.2d 633 (1966). 88 Loyola Fed. Say. & Loan Ass'n v. Buschman, 227 Md. 243, 176 A.2d 355 (1961). 89 Wilcox v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 17 N. Y .2d 249, 270 N. Y .S. 2d 569, 217 N.E.2d 633 (1966); McLean v. Soley, 270 Md. 208, 310 A.2d 783 (1973); Amoco Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mamaroneck, 122 A.D.2d 755, 505 N.Y.S.2d 643 (1986) (denial of variance to increase gasoline storage capacity upheld because of the (Release #5, 2/91)