In the Matter of Mignon M. Otto, Appellants, Against Albert Steinhilber, Constituting the Board of…

Summary

The Court held that the Board of Appeals erred in granting a variance on the ground of unnecessary hardship because the record failed to demonstrate the three requisite elements: that the residential portion could not yield a reasonable return, that the hardship was unique to the applicant, and that the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Accordingly, the Court reversed the Appellate Division, annulled the variance, and denied the application. Justice Lehman dissented, contending that the hardship was obvious.