|
|
The Borough of Dormont v. ZHB of the Borough of Dormont
850 A.2d 826 (Pa. Cmwlth 2004).
In this case the court reversed the ZHB grant of a variance by estoppel when the borough ordered the previous owners of a building to cease using the building as a three family dwelling but never enforced the order. The four items the applicant must prove to be granted a variance by estoppel are the following: (1) a long period of acquiescence by the municipality to a known violation; (2) innocent reliance on the validity of the use in violation; (3) substantial expenditures in reliance the use was permitted; and, (4) that a denial of a variance would pose and "unnecessary hardship" on the applicant.
The court held that the subsequent purchaser of the property did not satisfy all the elements of variance by estoppel because he could not show an "unnecessary hardship" created because of the ordinance. To show "unnecessary hardship," the applicant must prove that the ordinance renders the property virtually valueless. The building was located in an area where only one or two family structures were permitted. Because the landowner could continue using the property as a two family dwelling under the current ordinance, the property was not valueless.
DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top |
