pf_03377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ 6.03[4] ZONING 6-22 Moreover, variances will be denied where they have an adverse effect on local residents under the often used "health and safety" standard. In one case, this standard was pushed to the extreme when a variance to allow the siting of a community mental health residence was denied on the grounds that its residence might depress local residents.106 Local residents may in fact be the judge of whether they are adversely affected. Although local resistance does not ensure the denial of a variance, strong local opposition can contribute to a decision to deny the variance.107 In addition, protesting residents are implicitly guaranteed due consideration of their concerns through ordinances and statutes which require a super-majority of the local legislature where a certain percentage of affected residents oppose the variance.108 However, in some states by statute, the board may grant a variance over neighbor objection where the planning benefits of the variance outweigh any detriment. Thus, in Kaufmann v. Planning Board,108.1 the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the grant of an area variance to permit a lesser frontage because it improved the overall zoning plan in a context of similarly situated lots. This focus turns from a consideration of the effect of a variance grant or denial on the applicant's or neighbor's property to an objective consideration of the public benefit to be derived from adjusting a zoning rule. Similarly, in another New Jersey case, a denial of a variance was overturned where a nonprofit entity sought to convert a single-family home into a two-bedroom apartment for variance is not justified when instead of the parcel's shape causing the undue hardship, the parcel's street frontage, its limited access through narrow rights of way, and the necessity of accessing the property through a residential area is the real problem. The court noted that a variance could be granted only where circumstances relating to such conditions, shape or topography of such land, and a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would involve substantial hardship, and the relief sought is not detrimental to the public. good nor inconsistent with the purpose of the ordinance. Since these requirements are conjunctive, not disjunctive, all must be established in order to receive a variance. In addition, the court ruled that a special use permit will not stand when the underlying variance upon which it is based is invalid. 106 Application of Devereux Foundation, 351 Pa. 478, 41 A.2d 744 (1945). 107 Minney v. City of Azusa, 164 Cal. App. 2d 12, 330 P.2d 255 (1958); cf Broderick v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 362 Mass. 472, 280 N.E.2d 670 (1972). 108 Supra ~ 6.0211]. But the grant of a variance may not be subject to adjacent owner consent. See infra note 124.1. 108.1542 A.2d 457 (N.J. 1988).