pf_03377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6-21 PROCEDURES ~ 6.03[4] there is an absence of hardship, but because it is assumed that the property sold for a lesser price in view of its unique characteristics, or zoning.101.1 A lesser price to a subsequent purchaser would appear to constitute less hardship; in fact, it could just as easily represent a dead weight economic loss imposed by a land use process which fails to inquire whether a variance should be granted. Therefore, the better rule is to consider the purchaser to be in the same position as the seller, such that if the seller could obtain a variance, the purchaser may also do so regardless of knowledge at time of purchase.102 [4] Effect on Neighboring Property A variance may affect not only the subject property and its owner, but also adjacent property, and perhaps, a larger geographi- cal area. Generally speaking, variances are denied if they adversely affect neighboring property or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Variances may also be denied, of course, if they adversely affect the health and safety of neighborhood residents. Typically, ordinances prohibit variances that would result in a change to the surrounding neighborhood.103 As the essential charac- ter of a neighborhood consists of a variety of components, a variance may be denied due to its effect on anyone of these elements. Varying criteria have been used to demonstrate a change in a neighborhood's character, which would constitute grounds for denying a variance. For example, a variance which depreciates property values is impermissible.104 In addition, a variance has been denied because it would lead to additional local traffic.105 ", 101.1 Cf Degnan v. Monetti, 509 A.2d 277 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. 1986) (developer not entitled to variance to build condominiums on land zoned for single-family homes where developer bought land from public agency at a price that made construction of single-family homes impracticable and with the knowledge that unused sewage treatment plant would have to be removed prior to any development). 102 Searles v. Darling, 46 Del. 263, 83 A.2d 96 (1951). 103 Roumel v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 417 A.2d 405 (D.C. App. 1980); Silar v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 46 Pa. Commw. 340, 407 A.2d 74 (1979) where the variance was granted because it would not "substantially or permanently impair" neighboring property. 104 Commons v. Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 81 N.J. 597, 410 A.2d 1138, 1145 (1980); cf Hartman v. City of Columbia, 268 S.C. 44, 232 S.E.2d 15 (1977) (where effect on property values is not controlling). 105 Abrams v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 21 Pa. Commw. 284, 344 A.2d 734 (1975). See also Guiragossian v. Bd. of Appeals, 485 N .E.2d 686 (1985), which held that a (Release #5, 2/91)