Court Opinion

ID: 9777191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:01:47.725548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:49.880888
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
The property owner has laid the foundation for the grant of a variance by showing that two separate houses were located on a single lot at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted. There would be a substantial waste if habitable structures were required to be torn down. This showing should permit the Board to find, in its discretion, after hearing all evidence, that the tests of “unnecessary hardship” and “practical difficulties” are met.
Rate of return is an important consideration. Although initial cost may not be a controlling circumstance in determining the base from which reasonable return is to be calculated, it is a starting point. The Board was plainly wrong in denying the plaintiff the right to inquire about the initial cost. This error taints the hearing, and the order based on it cannot stand.
I concur, therefore, in the judgment of reversal and remand to the Board.