Suess v. Vogelgesang

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that hardship exists when “the property for which variance is sought cannot reasonably be put to conforming use.”
• holding that because zoning regulations and restrictive covenants operate independently of each other, a petitioner who is otherwise entitled to a variance should not be denied a variance \merely because utilization of the grant may be in violation of private restrictive covenants\
• zoning variance was not invalid because it conflicted with existing restrictive covenant, but variance did not relieve real estate from covenant
• finding same where property at issue was zoned residential but “nearly impossible” to sell as it had been on the market unsuccessfully for a long time

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).