Variances

In re: Appeal of Janice Boyer, Pa. Commw. (2008)

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).

Date of Decision: 10/22/08


View Case Details »

Vaughn v. ZHB of the Township of Shaler (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).

Date of Decision: 4/2/08


View Case Details »

In re Appeal of Newtown Racquetball Assocs. from Newtown Township Zoning Hearing Board, Pa. Commw. (1983)

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).

Date of Decision: 8/9/83


View Case Details »

North Chestnut Hill Neighbors v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia and Woodmere Art Museum, Pa. Commw. (2007)

In determining whether a variance may be granted under the Philadelphia Zoning Code, all three factors must be considered: (1) unique hardship to the property; (2) no adverse effect on the public health, safety or general welfare; and (3) the variance will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief at the least modification possible.

North Chestnut Hill Neighbors v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia and Woodmere Art Museum,
928 A.2d 418 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).


View Case Details »