Variances

In re Appeal of Chestnut Hill Cmty. Ass’n

Variances may be granted where the applicant proves strict compliance with the ordinance would create a hardship due to the unique physical circumstances or conditions of the lot. The hardship cannot be one that arises from the impact of zoning regulations in the district.

In re Appeal of Chestnut Hill Cmty. Ass’n, 155 A.3d 658 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)

Date of Decision: 3/3/17


View Case Details »

Coyle v. City of Leb. Zoning Hearing Bd.

Applicants for temporary variances must meet the same standards of proof as are required for permanent variances. In addition, de minimis variances may only be granted for dimensional variances.

Coyle v. City of Leb. Zoning Hearing Bd., 135 A.3d 240 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)

Date of Decision: 3/23/16


View Case Details »

Dunn v. Middletown Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

If applicant’s subdivision plans would create the non-conformity that the applicant seeks to resolve by variance, the applicant should not be granted a variance. Also, de minimis variances may be granted if applicants show that (a) minor deviation from the dimensional uses of a zoning ordinance is sought and (b) rigid compliance with the zoning ordinance is not necessary to protect the public policy concerns inherent in the ordinance. In addition, there is no precise mathematical percentage that marks the dividing line between de minimis and significant deviation.

Dunn v. Middletown Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 143 A.3d 494 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)

Date of Decision: 11/29/16


View Case Details »

Pohlig Builders, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2011)

Variance from steep slope provisions is a hybrid variance (i.e., neither a use nor dimensional variance). Additionally, landowner's pre-purchase knowledge of the steep slope provisions in the ordinance did not make the hardship self-created.

Pohlig Builders, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 25 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).


View Case Details »