Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2014 I Volume 8 ( Issue 13 <br />2. The variance will positively affect neighborhood prosperity and welfare; and <br />3. The variance will not impair light and air, increase traffic congestion or park- <br />ing problems, overburden fire protection or sewerage and water services, or <br />produce other nuisances such as odors, dust, fumes, noise or glare; <br />. . . and either . . <br />4. Circumstances special to the property create a demonstrable hardship for the <br />property owner; or <br />5. The property owner would be deprived of rights enjoyed by neighboring <br />property owners were the variance not be granted, but would not thereby simply <br />be granted special privileges, nor would the variance be merely for the owner's <br />convenience or profit." <br />Moreover, the court noted that a hardship that justifies the granting of a <br />variance must stem from the application of the ordinance to the property in <br />question and not from the actions of the applicant which amount to a self- <br />induced hardship. <br />Considering all of the facts and circumstances presented in the record, <br />the court found it clear that all of the requirements for the issuance of a vari- <br />ance had not been met. Specifically, the court found that: a variance would <br />not positively affect neighborhood prosperity and welfare; and while the <br />Cronleys certainly had shown a hardship due to Joey's medical condition, <br />they had not shown that circumstances special to the property created the <br />hardship. <br />While sympathizing with the Cronleys and understanding that keeping <br />the RV off -site would make caring for Joey more difficult, the court noted it <br />was compelled to follow the law. Accordingly, the court reinstated the <br />ZBA's decision to deny the variance. <br />See also: Merrihue v. St. Charles Parish Planning & Zoning Dept., 496 <br />So. 2d 1232 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986), writ denied, 497 So. 2d 1019 (La. <br />1986). <br />Telecommunications Act aying a <br />technological alternative exists, <br />borough denies carriers' variance <br />applications to construct wireless <br />communications monopole <br />Carriers say Borough's denial violates the <br />Telecommunications Act <br />Citation: Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the <br />Borough of Paramus, N.J., 60 Communications Reg. (P & F) 308, 2014 WL <br />1883589 (D.N.J. 2014) <br />NEW JERSEY (05/12/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />