from the one authorized by the “exception” that resulted in its abandonment. In contrast to Perone, the developer in this case never used its property in the manner authorized by the site plan approvals and variances required for construction of a larger apartment building, because plaintiff successfully challenged the validity of the resolutions granting those approvals. Thus, even assuming a property owner could be found to have abandoned a site plan approval and associated variances if it actually developed the property in accordance with subsequent land use approvals, that is not what occurred in this case. Therefore, there is no basis for finding that the developer abandoned the 2004 land use approvals. See Dimitrov v. Carlson, 138 N.J.Super. 52, 56, 350 A.2d 246 (App.Div.1975) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 70 N.J. 275, 359 A.2d 487
holding that a use variance does not expire and is not lost simply by reason of the passage of time and nonexercise absent an express time limitation set forth in the variance itself or in the zoning ordinance holding that 1001 ratio cannot be the basis of a variance holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself