Otto v. Steinhilber

24 N.E.2d 851 (1939)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The property in question is governed by a class A residential zone. An application was made to the Board of Appeals for a variance so that the party could erect a large roller skating rink upon both the commercial and residential portions of the land in question. The occupants in the immediate residential zone adjoining the proposed rink object to the variance as the rink with its attendance will destroy the availability of the neighborhood for residential purposes. Over 600 people have opposed the variance. The Board granted the variance on the grounds of unnecessary hardship in that the land lies within two zones, that the only means of access to the residential portion is over the commercial zone and that the intervenor could erect a rink wholly within the commercial zone and that cars would be parked on the property at the sides of the rink thus alleviating residential congestion. That decision was appealed.