Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2016 I Volume 10 1 Issue 11 <br />sion to grant the variance to operate a pawn shop within 500 feet of a <br />residential district in a C-3 commercial district did not allow a use not <br />permitted in the zoning classification. <br />Nevertheless, the court did agree with Pawn that the Board exceeded <br />its authority in granting the area variance to Jachimek. The court noted <br />that under Arizona statutory law (A.R.S. § 9-462.06), as well as the <br />City's zoning ordinance, a variance could only be granted if there were <br />"special circumstances" applying to the property, which were not cre- <br />ated by the owner or applicant. While the statutory law did not define <br />"special circumstances," the court found that case law defined it in the <br />zoning context as the "functional equivalent of the word `hardship.' " <br />Here, the court found that any special circumstances were created by <br />Jachimek and/or the property owner by selecting the particular prop- <br />erty to use as a pawn shop. Thus, the court concluded that the Board <br />exceeded its statutory authority in granting Jachimek's application for <br />a variance that did not meet the statutory criteria (i.e., criteria which <br />prohibited self -imposition). Therefore, the court concluded that the <br />Board's decision to grant Jachimek a variance was "ultra vires and <br />void." <br />See also: Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz. <br />App. 530, 529 P.2d 242 (Div. 21974). <br />See also: Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd., 156 Ariz. 503, 505, 753 <br />P.2d 193 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1988). <br />Fair Housing Suit —Developer seeks <br />and obtains builder's remedy in fair <br />housing suit <br />Township challenges builder's remedy as <br />inappropriate <br />Citation: Cranford Development Associates, LLC v. Township of <br />Cranford, 2015 WL 10715449 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016) <br />NEW JERSEY (04/26/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a developer was entitled to a "builder's remedy" in a suit to require a <br />township to use its zoning power in an affirmative manner to provide <br />an opportunity for low- and moderate -income housing. <br />The Background/Facts: Cranford Development Associates, LLC <br />("CDA") owned approximately sixteen acres of commercial property <br />in the Township of Cranford (the "Township"). CDA sought to develop <br />©2016 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />