Caruso v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Summary

The court affirmed the Appellate Court's reversal of a variance allowing a used-car dealership in a regional development district. The property owner failed to show that the zoning regulations deprived the property of all reasonable use and value, because the record did not address several permitted uses, the property's current value, or the owner's marketing and development efforts. The court also held that the Appellate Court did not impose a categorical requirement that every practical-confiscation claim include diminution-in-value evidence; such evidence was necessary here because the record did not otherwise establish the absence of reasonable uses or value.