Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Land Use Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Land Use Law

Varying The Variance: How New York City Can Solve Its Housing Crisis And Optimize Land Use To Serve The Public Interest, Nathan T. Boone Jan 2016

Varying The Variance: How New York City Can Solve Its Housing Crisis And Optimize Land Use To Serve The Public Interest, Nathan T. Boone

Brooklyn Law Review

As Millennials repopulate American cities and seek jobs in creative industries, housing affordability has risen to the forefront of urban policy battles. Major conflicts exist between homeowners, renters, municipal governments, and growing industries regarding the proper way to grapple with an influx of new capital, both financial and human. New York City is a prime example of this problem. Housing cost increases have exceeded income increases, leaving a large percentage of New Yorkers “rent burdened.” This note seeks to examine a likely cause of the present problem: zoning and variance systems that limit the ability of private land owners to …


Recent Development: Assategue Coastal Trust, Inc. V. Schwalbach: An Applicant Must Satisfy The "Unwarranted Hardship" Standard To Be Granted A Variance; The Variance Must Have No Adverse Impact On The Environment And Conform To The Purpose Of The Critical Area Program, Michael Louis Brown Jan 2016

Recent Development: Assategue Coastal Trust, Inc. V. Schwalbach: An Applicant Must Satisfy The "Unwarranted Hardship" Standard To Be Granted A Variance; The Variance Must Have No Adverse Impact On The Environment And Conform To The Purpose Of The Critical Area Program, Michael Louis Brown

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Worchester County Board properly applied the “unwarranted hardship” standard and correctly granted a variance under local critical area law. Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 448 Md. 112, 140, 136 A.3d 866, 882 (2016). The court held that the variance would not have an adverse impact on the environment and the development was in conformity with the Critical Area Program’s purpose and intent. Schwalbach, 448 Md. at 143-44, 136 A.3d at 883.