from one or more conditions imposed on a conditional use should be relevant to the nature of the deviation from the ordinance. The burden of proof required to sustain a use variance not only is too onerous for a conditional-use variance; in addition, its focus is misplaced. The use-variance proofs attempt to justify the board of adjustment’s grant of permission for a use that the municipality has prohibited. Proofs to support a conditional-use variance need only justify the municipality’s continued permission for a use notwithstanding a deviation from one or more conditions of the ordinance. Ill The course of judicial development of variance standards reflects the need for criteria that are appropriate for specific types of variances. See Sica, supra, 127 N.J. at 155, 603 A.2d 30 (<HOLDING>); Burbridge v. Mine Hill Township, 117 N.J.
holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that armed robbery cannot be enhanced under section 7750871 florida statutes 1981 because under the robbery statute it is already an enhanced charge due to the use or display of a weapon holding that use of unimproved land in a general state of nature is presumably permissive if there has been no actual deprivation of any beneficial use to the owner holding that enhanced standard of proofs for use variances does not apply where use is inherently beneficial holding that continued possession and unrestricted use constitutes regular use