Court considered potential loss of value and development potential to neighboring properties in evaluating the potential adverse effects on the neighborhood or potential detriment to the public.
Northeast Pa. SMSA Ltd. P’ship v. Scott Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 18 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
Variance properly denied where developer could have complied strictly with the ordinance by reducing the intensity of its proposed development.
Soc’y Hill Civic Ass’n v. Phila. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 42 A.3d 1178 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
Variances for silo, including communication antennas, that exceeded maximum permitted height were not use variances and were justified based on the potential effect on the continued economic viability of the farm if the variances were not granted.
In re Appeal of Towamencin Twp. from the Decision, 42 A.3d 366 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
Zoning Board of Adjustment did not err in determining that setback variances to go from five feet to zero feet were not de minimis in nature.
Hawk v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Bd. of Adj., 38 A.3d 1061 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
Zoning Hearing Board properly refused to modify conditions on prior variance approval where there was no evidence to support the requested modification.
German v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 41 A.3d 947 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
Validity variance was justified where rezoning rendered the only potential use of the private property to be that of a public park, which was a confiscation of private property.
Nowicki v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 91 A.3d 287 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
Potential loss of significant grant funding if variance is not approved may be considered as proper evidence of hardship for justifying the variance.
Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 626 Pa. 385 (Pa. 2014).
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).
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).
Creating a situation in which a property is difficult to sell due to substantial improvements does not create a hardship.
Pham v. Upper Merion Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 113 A.3d 879 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).