2902 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

i ' :, 4i f THE BOARD OF ADJUSTDSENT ACTED ARBITRARILY AND � CAYRICIOUSLY, AND IN AN ULTRA VIRES N.�NNER BY GRANTING A VARIANCE BASED UPON UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP •WHERE SUCH ALLEGED HARDSHIP SJAS THE MERE IMPOSITION OP FINAP7CIAL LOSS UPON TAE APPLICANT, AND WHERE SUCH HARDSH?P WAS SELF- . IMPOSED. ' Even had the Board of hdjustment considered whether these weze such special conditions pertaini:.g to the property that undue � unnecessa: hardship would result from enforcement of tlie off- and Y 3 street ; parking requirement, a -finding of such would not have been � warranted. In this application for a variance, t�e applicant alleged that an undue hardship will continue to the owner of the property, � the cause of which is beyond his control because he needed more � - nearb seating to compete with the newly remodeled establishments Y• However, the mere imposition of a financial loss upon the • owner of land is not necessarily a hardship which will justify the granting of a variance to relieve or mitigate such loss. Financial loss short of drastic depreciation is usually regarded as insuffic- - ient, so long as applicant has retained some beneficial use o� his land. See American Law of Zoning, supra §18 .22 . PP 195-96. Loss of competitive advantage is insufficient to prove unnecessary hardship. American Law of Zoning, id. at page 197- In Annotation, "Construction and application of provisions for variances in application of zoning regulations and special exceptions thereto, " 168 ALR 13,30-31, it is stated: "The authorities are generally to the effect that the fact that the literal enforcement of the zoning regulation in c�llesti�n Nould result in financial or pecuniary loss to the applicant does not of itself establish a case of unzecessary hardswheresit does not for granting the variance, at least, -10- v