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).
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).
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).
The Borough of Dormont v. ZHB of the Borough of Dormont
850 A.2d 826 (Pa. Cmwlth 2004).
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).
A variance is justified when the natural conditions of the land prevent reasonable development.
Solebury Township v. Solebury Township Zoning Hearing Board, 914 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwth. 2007).
Appletree Land Development v. ZHB of York Township, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 834 A.2d 1214
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).