noting that "a condition [that] limits the life of a variance to ownership by a particular individual is patently illegal, as it advances no legitimate land use purpose"
How later courts described this case
- noting that "a condition [that] limits the life of a variance to ownership by a particular individual is patently illegal, as it advances no legitimate land use purpose"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 254 N.J.Super. 401 , 603 A.2d 954 (1992).