Opinion ID: 2385626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authority of the BZA to Impose Conditions Upon Grant of Variance

Text: In imposing restrictive conditions, the Board draws upon its general mandate to insure that a proposed variance would have no detrimental effect on the neighborhood or zone plan. [8] See, e.g., Monaco, supra, 407 A.2d at 1101. We do not hold that the Board may never impose conditions in granting a variance. The record as it stands is inadequate to permit a determination regarding conditions in general. We hold only that the conditions imposed by the BZA in this instance are unlawful. On remand of the case, the BZA should more fully set forth the source of its authority to impose conditions and the specific findings supporting any such conditions.
The first and third conditions imposed by the BZA, however, limit the use variance to the NBCDI and provide for termination of the variance upon transfer of title. The BZA argues that the limitations are necessary to preserve the integrity of the zoning plan. Authorities generally disfavor personal conditions; rather, conditions, like the variance itself, must run with the land. Dexter v. Town Board of Town of Gates, 36 N.Y.2d 102, 104, 365 N.Y.S.2d 506, 508, 324 N.E.2d 870, 871 (1975); Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar's Head District, 146 A.2d 257, 260 (N.H. 1958); see also 3 R.M. ANDERSON, AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING 2D § 18.69 (1977); 6 P.J. ROHAN, ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROL § 43.03[2] (1984). We adopt this position. Personal conditions impermissibly regulate the business conduct of the owner, rather than the use of his property, and are unlawful per se. [9] We reserve judgment, however, regarding generic conditions, such as might limit the variance granted here and its transfer to the NBCDI or any similarly situated nonprofit organization. The conditions would thus be structured to run with the land, requiring any future occupant to show that it fits within the genre. On remand, should the BZA decide to impose such generic conditions, it must hear evidence from the NBCDI regarding the impact upon it of those conditions and must weigh that evidence in making its determination. See Monaco, supra, 407 A.2d at 1101; accord Allentuck v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, 261 A.2d 826, 832-33 (D.C. 1969) (record must reveal sufficient basic findings and a reasoned application of these findings to agency policy and the law).
The second condition limits the NBCDI to twelve employees. This condition does regulate use of the property, and is therefore not unlawful per se. It is, however, unsupported by evidence in the record, and instead is based only on a finding that the NBCDI had twelve employees at the time it applied for its variance. (Record at 196.) The BZA heard no evidence from the NBCDI regarding its present or future needs for staff, nor did it relate the conditions to specific findings regarding traffic, parking, or availability of public transportation. If the BZA imposes a condition limiting the number of employees at the site, it must base its findings on reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Monaco, supra, 407 A.2d at 1101; Allentuck, supra, 261 A.2d at 833. The case is remanded for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.