Jacquelin at 476-77, 312 A.2d at 125-26 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). It is a case of the existence of a substantial hardship peculiar to this particular land'. This is a case wherein any productive use of the land will be denied altogether. But this is not a case of "economic hardship" such as where the owner seeks to use the land in a more profitable manner. 'Of course, an economic hardship is not sufficient in itself to warrant the grant of a variance.
If this use is denied, the owner will be compelled to continue to pay taxes thereon, maintain the actual surface and adjoining sidewalks in a clean and reasonably safe condition in order to escape possible damage claims, without any return from the use of the property whatsoever. In fact, the size and dimension permit a very limited number of productive uses, the most likely and practical being that contemplated. The conclusion of the board to the contrary was not justified. 'The size and dimension of the land as presently constituted prevent the construction and use thereon of any residence property. The following passage from that case seems applicable here: 248, 182 A.2d 521 (1962), where all but a small portion of a lot was condemned, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court and Zoning Board of Adjustment which had denied a variance to permit the construction of outdoor advertising signs.
0 kommentar(er)
