Opinion ID: 2185419
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: illegality of variance

Text: Frank v. Russell is instructive on the question of the circumstances under which a board of adjustment may grant a zoning variance. In Frank, the defendants had applied for and obtained a variance from a zoning ordinance which required a front yard setback of 40 feet from the lot line. The variance permitted construction within 27 feet of the line. The plaintiffs, who lived in the same block as the defendants, argued that as all other homes on the block had a front yard setback of 40 feet, a house constructed 13 feet closer to the lot line would obstruct their view, interfere with the enjoyment of their home, and depreciate the value of their property. The district court affirmed the grant of the variance. This court reversed for the reasons that no substantial hardship to the applicant had been shown but that injury to other property owners had, in that the variance destroyed the symmetry of the block and interfered with the views of other property owners. In so ruling, the Frank court stated: It appears that the rule respecting the right of a board of adjustment, such as the one here, to grant a variance from zoning regulations on the ground of unnecessary hardship is generally that it may not be granted: Unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the right of property; if the grant relates to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant; if it relates only to a financial situation or hardship to the applicant; if the hardship is based on a condition created by the applicant; if the hardship was intentionally created by the owner; if the variation would be in derogation of the spirit, intent, purpose, or general plan of the zoning ordinance; if the variation would affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others; or ordinarily if the applicant purchased his premises after enactment of the ordinance. 160 Neb. at 362-63, 70 N.W.2d at 312. It is worth observing that at the time Frank was decided, § 19-910 did not enumerate the criteria one applying for a variance had to meet, other than to show that a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship and that the requested variance was not contrary to public policy. It is apparent that much of what is now in § 19-910 comes from Frank. In any event, so far as is relevant to this case, § 19-910 and the code of the City of York now empower a board of adjustment to grant a variance from a zoning regulation only if strict application of the regulation, because of the unusual physical characteristics of the property existing at the time of the enactment, would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardships upon the owner.... § 19-910. Both the statute and the code define undue hardship as a demonstrable and exceptional hardship as distinguished from variations for purposes of convenience, profit or caprice. The evidence establishes that the setback requirement at issue was part of the rezoning designation York Cold Storage wanted and obtained. There is no evidence that the physical characteristics of York Cold Storage's property were, at that or at any other time, such that strict application of the setback requirement would produce undue hardship for it. Indeed, Sack's testimony establishes that York Cold Storage wanted relief from the requirement solely in order that it might maximize its profits. Although that is certainly an understandable, and even laudable, goal, it does not provide a basis for riding roughshod over the rights of others by obtaining a variance from zoning regulations with which the rest of the community must live. As said in Frank v. Russell, 160 Neb. at 361, 70 N.W.2d at 311, quoting Annot., 168 A.L.R. 30 (1947): `[T]he financial situation or pecuniary hardship of a single owner affords no adequate grounds for putting forth this extraordinary power affecting other property owners as well as the public.' Nor is the situation changed, as York Cold Storage argues, by the fact that its ability to build a larger facility enables it to augment its work force and thus benefit the community at large. A business which expands its facilities will generally require additional employees; if the need or desire for expansion alone were to justify a variance, zoning regulations would be meaningless. Having determined that York Cold Storage failed to establish that strict application of the setback requirement would have produced undue hardship for it, we do not need to consider whether it met the other criteria for a variance. Accordingly, the district court neither made an error of law nor abused its discretion in concluding that the variance was granted illegally.