Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin fied also-Jarat had to show thar either: l)the general welfare would be served by the particular use aT rhe particular location; or 2) an undue hardship existed because the property could nor be used beneficially un- der its existing ZOrTh."'1g classification. J arat argued that the general welfare would be served by the con- struction of the drainage basin because it would alleviate an existing drainage problem. It also contended that the odd shape of the land and its landlocked position-it was surrounded by residential homes and/or undeveloped commercial land-necessitated the variance. The board was persuaded by this argw.-nent, as was the lower court. The appeals court agreed with the earlier determination that the unique circumstances justified the variance, noting that locatLTlg the drainage basin within the 11 acres zoned for business would leave the remaining 1.3 acres without any realistic potential for development un- der its residential zoning. The appeals court noted that leaving land un- developed was not necessarily a bad thing, but it added that the board had "articulated more than sufficient reasons for treating Jarat's split- zoned circumstances...as a hardship." Additionally, placing the drainage basin in the smaller tract of land would allow J arat to make the best possible use of the land zoned for commercial development. Finally, the court concluded that the board sufficiently took any potential negative impact on the surrounding com- munity into account in making its decision. Because the record showed that both the positive and negative cri- teria for variance were met, tb.e decision granting the variance was not arbitrary. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. See also: AMG Associates v. Springfield Tp., 65 N.]. 101, 319 A.2d 705 (1974). See also: Burbridge v. Governing Body of Tp. of Mine Hill, 117 N.J. 376,568 A.2d 527 (1990). Ediitorial.QueStioJil'S,or Comments:west.quinlan@th,olTls9n::~grfl'c:>.. --"- 12 176