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
O’HERN, Justice,
dissenting.
I would reverse the judgment of the Law Division, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Gaulkin’s concurring and dissenting opinion, reported at 254 N.J.Super. 401 , 603 A.2d 954 (1992).