pf_03377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ 6.03[6] ZONING 6-24 challenges arise to conditions which attempt to regulate the property owner rather than the property. It is improper to impose conditions which regulate a specific owner's conduct.123 In this regard, a condition that the variance will terminate upon the owner's transfer of the property will not be upheld.124 Moreover, it may be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to condition approval of a variance on the consent of adjacent own- ers.124.1 Research Reference: For further discussion, see Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning ch. 40. [6] Temporary Variances (Conditions as to Time) Although a variance runs with the land,125 it may expire after a set time or on the occurrence of a predetermined event. Such variances may be referred to as temporary variances, and have been upheld as valid.126 While a temporary variance may be renewable, it need not be. The time limitations take a variety of forms. A variance which expires if not used within a set time has been upheld as valid.127 Alternatively, a variance can be granted to expire under all circumstances after a set time period. Variances which expire any time from two to twenty years have been upheld.128 The board may also grant a variance on the condition that the permitted use occurs 123 Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar's Head Dist., 101 N.H. 460, 146 A.2d 257 (19.')8). 124Id. 124.1 Lakin v. City of Peoria, 472 N.E.2d 1233 (III. App. 1984). 125 Feneck v. Murdock, 16 Misc. 2d 789,181 N.Y.S.2d 441 (1958); State ex reI. Parker v. Konopka, 119 Ohio App. .'513, 200 N.E.2d 695 (1963). 126 See, e.g., Lucia v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 63 Pa. Commw. 272, 437 A.2d 1294 (1981). 127 Ambrosio v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 196 Misc. 100.'5, 96 N.Y.S.2d 380 (1949); Belfer v. Building Comm'r of Boston, 363 Mass. 439, 294 N.E.2d 857 (1973). 128 Two years: Guenther v. Zoning Board of Review, 8.'5 R.I. 37, 12.'5 A.2d 214 (1956); fit;e years: New York Life Ins. Co. v. Foley, 13 App. Div. 2d 768, 216 N.Y.S.2d 267 (1961); ten years: Douglaston Civic Ass'n v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 278 App. Div. 6.'59,102 N.Y.S.2d .'582 (19.'51);fifteen years: Sima v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 278 App. Div. 78.'5, 104 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1951); twenty years: Application of Laurelton Civic Ass'n, 141 N.Y.S.2d 180 (19.'),'5); Arlington Village Dev. Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 204 Misc. 39.'), 124 N.Y.S.2d 172 (19.'):3).