410 A.2d 1138 (N.J. 1980)
The property in question is a vacant lot, designated as Lot 20 in Block 208 on the tax map of the Borough of Westwood.1 Plaintiffs Gordon and Helen Commons are the present owners.2 They and their predecessors in title have owned this plot since 1927.3 The lot has a frontage of only 30 feet on Brickell Avenue and a total area of 5,190 square feet.4
When the borough adopted its zoning ordinance in 1933, the ordinance contained no minimum frontage or area provisions.5 A 1947 amendment required one-family houses to be located on lots with a frontage of at least 75 feet and an area of no less than 7,500 square feet.6 At the time the amendment was adopted there were approximately 32 homes in the immediate area, and only seven satisfied the minimum frontage requirement.7
Plaintiff Leo Weingarten, a builder, contracted to purchase the property from the Commons on the condition that he could construct a one-family residence on the lot.8 Weingarten proposed to construct a single-family one-and-one-half-story raised ranch with four bedrooms, a living room, dining room, kitchen, two baths, and a one-car garage.9 The proposed home would have an approximate width of 19 feet 6 inches and a depth of 48 feet, centered on the 30-foot lot to provide five-foot side yards.10 The proposed home would be offered for sale for about $55,000.11 Weingarten had no architectural design of the proposed house but submitted a plan for a larger home which he claimed could be scaled down.12
In 1974, plaintiff Gordon Commons had offered to sell the lot to adjacent owner Robert Dineen for $7,500.13 Negotiations terminated after Dineen countered with a $1,600 proposal.14 When Weingarten contracted to purchase the land, he sought unsuccessfully to purchase from adjacent owner David Butler a 10-foot strip adjacent to the south side of the lot.15 The Dineen property has a 50-foot frontage, and the Butler frontage measures 74.5 feet.16 The proposed residence would be roughly 18 feet from the Dineen house and 48 feet from the Butler two-family residence.17
Many neighbors opposed the variance application.18 Butler testified that a house on a 30-foot lot would be aesthetically displeasing, would differ in appearance by having a garage in front rather than alongside the dwelling, and would impair property values in the neighborhood.19 Another property owner expressed concern about privacy and a spillover effect in terms of noise and trespassing.20 The board of adjustment denied the variance. It found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any evidence to establish hardship and that the granting of the variance would substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.21 The Superior Court, Law Division, affirmed. The Appellate Division affirmed in a brief per curiam opinion.22 The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification.23
Whether the board of adjustment's conclusion that the applicants failed to demonstrate any evidence of hardship was supported by the record?24
Under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c), a board of adjustment may grant a variance from bulk requirements when the narrowness of the land or other extraordinary situation would cause exceptional and undue hardship to the developer if the ordinance were strictly applied.25 The applicant must show the hardship is not self-imposed and the negative criteria must also be satisfied.26
No. The established facts demonstrate that evidence of hardship existed in the record.27 The lot was acquired in 1927 before any zoning ordinance existed in the borough, and the 1947 amendment first imposed the 75-foot frontage and 7,500-square-foot area requirements that rendered the 30-foot, 5,190-square-foot parcel nonconforming.28 In 1974, plaintiff Gordon Commons had offered to sell the lot to adjacent owner Robert Dineen for $7,500. Negotiations terminated after Dineen countered with a $1,600 proposal.
Weingarten then sought without success to purchase a 10-foot strip from adjacent owner Butler.29 These documented efforts to mitigate the nonconformity, combined with the risk that denial would zone the land into inutility, supplied affirmative evidence of hardship that the board was required to address rather than dismiss as nonexistent.30
The board's conclusion that the applicants failed to demonstrate any evidence of hardship was not supported by the record, requiring reversal and remand.31
Whether the board of adjustment adequately explained the manner in which the proposed variance would substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance?32
The negative criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c) require that any variance be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.33 The board must articulate specific findings showing how the particular facts produce that impairment rather than issuing only a conclusory statement.34
No. The board supplied only the bare conclusion that the variance would substantially impair the zone plan without identifying any causal link to the facts it recited.35 The established facts show that the proposed use is permitted, the five-foot side yards and setbacks conform to ordinance minima, the 5,190-square-foot area matches seventeen other lots in the neighborhood, and the $55,000 sales price falls within the $45,000-to-$60,000 range of nearby homes.36 Neighbor testimony about aesthetics and privacy was received, yet the board never explained how the 19-foot-6-inch width or garage placement would produce the claimed impairment.37 Without that reasoned connection, the negative-criteria finding cannot stand.38
The board did not adequately explain the manner in which the variance would impair the zone plan and zoning ordinance.39
Whether the board of adjustment's findings regarding the size and appearance of the proposed house and its impact on the neighborhood were sufficient?40
A board of adjustment must support its denial of a variance with specific findings of fact drawn from the record that address the statutory criteria.41 Summary statements cast in the language of the statute are inadequate because they prevent a reviewing court from determining whether the board acted within its authority.42
No. The board's resolution mentioned the lot's unique 30-foot width, the builder's lack of prior experience with such lots, and the proposed 19-foot-6-inch width, but never connected those details to any adverse effect on light, air, open space, property values, or neighborhood character, even though many neighbors opposed the variance application and Butler testified that a house on a 30-foot lot would be aesthetically displeasing, would differ in appearance by having a garage in front rather than alongside the dwelling, and would impair property values in the neighborhood; such conclusory treatment falls short of the required factual articulation.43
The board's findings on the size, appearance, and neighborhood impact of the proposed house were not sufficient.44