property in question contained zoning restrictions known by the prospective purchaser who bought property assuming that a variance would be granted; the Supreme Court denied the grant of the variance holding that the landowner hardship was self-inflicted
How later courts described this case
- property in question contained zoning restrictions known by the prospective purchaser who bought property assuming that a variance would be granted; the Supreme Court denied the grant of the variance holding that the landowner hardship was self-inflicted
- variance applicant who paid high price for property because he assumed the variance would be granted and would justify the purchase price was not entitled to variance as hardship was self-inflicted rather than inherent in the property
- economic infeasibility resulted from the high cost of the site improvement due to the topography of the ground
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I join in the opinion of Justice O’Brien but I am impelled to write this concurrence to observe that the dissenting opinion seeks to advocate a new legal con *561 cept in the grant of variances, namely—that self-imposed economic hardship is a justification for the grant of a variance. The acceptance of such a principle would completely undermine all of our zoning legislation.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this ©ewcurring opinion.