DCPREZ-0000-03576 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• . . • These ten criteria focus broadly on whether the proposed Center makes sense. They ask whether it is necessary (and particularly whether it is necessary in an A-1 Agricul- ture [Exclusive] District) ; whether it will impose undue burdens, economic or otherwise, on local governmental services; and whether the benefits the community will derive from the Center outweigh its economic, environmental, and agricultural costs. This last "benefit test" parallels the basic principles underlying a conditional use, as opposed to a variance. The idea behind a variance is that the landowner needs special relief, because of undue hardship to him if a variance is not granted. By contrast, the idea behind a con- ditional use is that the community will reap a net benefit from the proposed use; in other words, even though the possible drawbacks of the proposed use mean that it should be considered on a case-by-case basis rather than given blanket permission, the conditional use can be granted if the applicant demonstrates that in his particular case the benefits to the community out- weigh the drawbacks. Our Supreme Court has explained this "community benefit" approach to conditional uses as follows : "Conditional uses . . . are designed to cope with situations where a particular use , although not inherently inconsistent with the . . . classification of a particular zone , may will create special problems and hazards if allowed . . . as a matter of right . . . "By this device, certain uses . . . which may be considered essentially desirable to the community, but which should not be authorized generally in a particular zone because of conditions such as . . . traffic congestion, population density, noise, effect on adjoining land values or other considerations including public health, safety, or general welfare, may be permitted upon a proposed site depend- ing upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. " -6-