- Disclaimer
- Proposed Legislation
- State Statutes
- State Statutes Referenced
in MPC
- Other State Statutes
- Land Use Case Law - Court Rulings
KEY TOPICS: VARIANCES
Appletree Land Development v. ZHB of York Township, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 834 A.2d 1214
The Commonwealth Court restated the public policy against assisting landowners who violate a zoning ordinance, whether negligently or intentionally. In this case, the court refused to grant Appletree Land Development a variance to allow a 1.19-foot variance to a dimensional zoning requirement. Appletree argued that the variance would fall under the de minimis variance doctrine. The court explained that the doctrine applies only where a minor deviation is sought, and rigid compliance with the zoning ordinance is not necessary to protect public policy. The court further explained that the de minimis variance doctrine is an exceptional remedy, and Appletree’s failure to determine the zoning requirements applicable to their model home would not support such a variance. The court concluded by stating, “the burden of zoning compliance is upon the landowner, and [Appletree’s] difficulties were self-inflicted.”
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.