SP-069 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 distinction between special use permits and variances is given in "Verona, Inc. V Mayor and Council of West Caldwell, 49, N.J. 274, 282, 229A, 2d651, 655." In this case the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey stated: "The basic difference between a use which is a special exception (use) and one which requires a variance is that the former is legislatively permitted in a zone subject to controls, whereas the latter is legislatively prohibited but may be allowed for special reasons." The Court goes on to emphasize that one who seeks a special permit, where the proposed purpose has been legislatively sanctioned, has a burden of proof required, but that the burden is lighter than that required of one who seeks a variance. -The proof required is that the use proposed is compatible with the basic standards of the district. This requirement is an immediate conclusion of the Constitutional Principle of Equality Under the Law as derived from the Constitutional provisions of "due process" and "equal protection." For further reference to case law see for example "Inland Construction Company and Another V City of Bloomington 195 N.Wo 2d 558; IY1arch 3, 1972 - No. 42883" and its referenced case law. A further discussion of special use permits occurs in "Nylka V City of Crystal,283 Minn 192, 195, 167 N.v.!. 2d 45, 48 (1969)", where the Court states: "...(Special Use permits) are designed to meet the problem which arises where certain uses, although generally compat- ible with the basic use of a particular zone, should not be permitted in the zone (in some circumstances) because of hazards inherent in the use itself or because of special problems which the proposed use may present." By reason of symmetry in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution it is immediately obvious that a City Council has the responsibility to deny a special use permit when such does not meet the basic design standards of the district-- if by modification the proposal could meet the standards. conversely a City Council has the responsiblity to approve a special use permit when such makes a reasonable attempt to satisfy the basic design standards of the district and is not adverse to the public health, safety and welfare. The converse question is the most discussed in case law. The City Council oath of office to uphold the Constitution would thus imply a two sided responsibility in the matter. It is generally agreed that when the ordinance does not specific- ally state the criteria to be used in the decision making process,