## Facts

- Gordon L. and Helen T. Commons owned an undeveloped residential lot in the Borough of Westwood since 1927; builder Leo Weingarten contracted to purchase it contingent on obtaining a variance.
- The lot was in a residential district requiring 75 feet of frontage and 7,500 square feet of area, but the lot had 30 feet of frontage and 5,190 square feet.
- The minimum frontage/area requirements were adopted by amendment in 1947; the lot predated those restrictions.
- The neighborhood contained many lots that did not meet the frontage requirement; the pattern remained largely unchanged after 1947.
- Plaintiffs proposed a single-family, one-and-one-half-story home centered on the lot with five-foot side yards (the ordinance minimum).
- The owners unsuccessfully attempted to buy adjacent land to enlarge the lot and could not sell the lot for a price reflecting value as a buildable lot.
- Neighboring owners and the municipal planner opposed the application, asserting aesthetic impacts, crowding, and reduced property values.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicants proved “undue hardship” warranting a hardship variance for a pre-existing undersized lot that could not reasonably be used in conformity with the ordinance.
2. Whether the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and ordinance (the negative criteria).
3. Whether the zoning board’s denial was supported by adequate, specific findings tied to record evidence sufficient for judicial review.

## Decision

- The zoning board denied the variance; the trial court and appellate division affirmed.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the affirmance and remanded to the zoning board.
- The Court concluded the record supported hardship because the lot, as zoned, lacked a realistic conforming use and the hardship was not self-created.
- The Court held the board’s denial rested on generalized opposition and lacked specific, record-supported findings explaining how the proposal would violate the negative criteria.
- The Court did not order issuance of the variance; it required further proceedings and legally adequate findings consistent with the statutory standards.

## Legal Principles

- A hardship variance may be warranted when, due to exceptional conditions affecting a specific property, strict application of zoning requirements would deny reasonable use and the hardship is not self-created.
- Even if hardship is shown, a variance may issue only if it can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
- Generalized aesthetic objections or unsupported claims of diminished property values do not satisfy the negative criteria without credible evidence and articulated reasoning.
- Zoning boards must make clear findings of fact and conclusions of law that connect record evidence to the statutory criteria; judicial deference depends on reviewable, nonconclusory findings.
- When findings are inadequate, the proper remedy is remand for further consideration and a fuller, record-supported explanation.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the denial of a hardship variance for a long-held, undersized residential lot because the record showed substantial hardship and the board failed to make specific, evidence-based findings on the statutory negative criteria; the matter was remanded for further proceedings and adequate findings.


Commons v. W.wood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 81 N.J. 597, 410 A.2d 1138 (1980)