Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Summary

The concurrence agrees that the trial court's dismissal of the appeal should be affirmed, but rejects the majority's conclusion that constitutional takings principles required the variances or protected the right to reconstruct the damaged nonconforming cottage. It would instead uphold the zoning board's discretionary finding of unusual hardship based on the hurricane damage, mandatory flood regulations, site conditions, the impossibility of restoring the cottage exactly as before, and the owner's good-faith efforts to reduce nonconformities. The concurrence distinguishes the constitutional standard for economic hardship from the statutory variance standard applicable when other unusual circumstances create hardship.