Property owner was not entitled to a variance when she failed to establish that the property was subject to unnecessary hardship and arguably only proved that she was subject to hardship.
In re: Appeal of Janice Boyer, 960 A.2d 179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Property owners were entitled to a variance by estoppel because they relied on representations of the zoning officer and spent substantial amounts of money in the construction of a wall.
Vaughn v. ZHB of the Township of Shaler, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
An economic burden alone does not constitute an unnecessary or legal hardship as to warrant a variance. Pursuant to Section 502 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, applications for land development must be sent to the county’s planning commission before a municipality can approve the application.
In re Appeal of Newtown Racquetball Assocs. from Newtown Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 464 A.2d 576 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983).
The standards for a variance do not permit a single-family home to be converted into a professional office in a district in which such offices are not permitted where applicant has lived in the house for 40 years and cannot, therefore, show that the house cannot be used in conformity with the zoning ordinance.
Schadt v. City of Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Bd., 119 A.3d 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
VARIANCE - HARDSHIP TO PROPERTY NOT PERSON.
Yeager v. ZHB of the City of Allentown, Pa. Commw. (June 14, 2001)
Cite: 779 A.2d 595
Cross Reference: MPC 910.2
A variance may be granted if landowners would be denied the reasonable use of their property absent a variance.
Sombers v. Stroud Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 913 A.2d 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
Where an applicant requests a dimensional variance, financial aspects and the surrounding neighborhood may be considered, and whether the property is rendered valueless without the variance or whether it could be used for a permitted purpose are not dispositive.
Tidd v. Lower Saucon Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 118 A.3d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
Hertzberg v. ZHB of Pittsburgh
721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998).
County's legal obligation to upgrade its emergency communication systems satisfied the "unique physical circumstances" element for a variance requested to permit a communication tower that exceeded the height limitation in the zoning ordinance.
Richards, et al. v. Borough of Coudersport Zoning Hearing Bd., 979 A.2d 957 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
A variance is properly denied under the MPC where the applicant has created his own unnecessary hardship.
Wilson v. Plumstead Twp. Zoning Hearing Board,
894 A.2d 845 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), reargument denied, (Pa. Cmwlth. April 13, 2006).