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).
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).
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).
VARIANCES: Economic considerations alone insufficient to prove hardship.
Laurento v. ZHB of West Chester et al., 162 Pa Comwlth 226, 638 A2d 437 (1994)
Hertzberg does not excuse an applicant from providing evidence on the MPC criteria for a variance, including hardship. Additionally, a retailer's standard architectural requirements may not be the sole basis for a hardship.
Twp. of Northampton vs. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Northampton Twp., 969 A.2d 24 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
An appellate court is unlikely to disturb the granting of a variance where an objector offers no expert testimony or other evidence in rebuttal of an applicant’s evidence.
Candela v. Millcreek Twp. Zoning Hearing Board,
887 A.2d 335 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
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).