|
The MPC does not generally apply to the City of Pittsburgh.
Vitti et. al, v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh and Bethlehem Haven, 710 A2d. 653, Pa. Cmwlth (1998).
Note: Appeal denied
Cross Reference MPC 101-1101.
This case is cited primarily for purposes of indicating that the MPC does not apply to the City of Pittsburgh. The Court did note, however, that since variance provisions in the Pittsburgh Code, are similar to the MPC, the court would apply case law developed under the similar variance provisions of the MPC.
The major substantive holding of this case, which is generally applicable to use variances under the MPC, is that an unnecessary hardship can be demonstrated by proof that (1) the physical characteristics of the property are such that it could not be used in any case for any purpose permitted in that district or that it could only be used for a permitted purpose only at prohibitive expense, and also (2) the characteristics of property are such that the lot either has no value or only distress value for any permitted purpose under the ordinance.
The Court clearly differentiates between mere "economic hardship" and those cases in which the court finds virtually no viable permitted uses exist for the property or that the costs of compliance are extreme enough to make the property virtually worthless.
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 |
