Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1997

Home

I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z.g. February 10, 1997 -- Page 3 Variance -- Should board consider only size of "de minimis" variance? Citation: Township of Middletown v. Zoning Hearing Board of Middletown Township, 682 A.2d 900 (Pennsylvania) 1996 The McVeighs applied for a variance so they could add a garage to their home in Middletown, Pa. Under the township zoning ordinance, building coverage was limited to 2,472 square feet. The McVeighs' original proposal would have resulted in 2,726 square feet of coverage (10 percent over the limit), and would have encroached on one setback. The McVeighs amended their plans. The new proposal would result in total building coverage of 2,639 square feet (6 percent over the limit) and would not encroach on the setback. State court decisions allowed municipalities to grant a "de minimis" variance if the deviation from the ordinance was minor and if rigid compliance was not absolutely necessary to protect the public policy concerns of the ordinance. The township zoning board granted the variance under this rule. The board noted that other property owners in the area had developed their property in excess of the ordinance's building coverage limits. It concluded the McVeigh variance would have a minimal impact on the surrounding properties and on health, safety and general welfare. The McVeighs' home after the addition was the same size as other residences in the neighborhood. The board imposed conditions on the use of the garage to ensure the variance would not negatively affect the community. The township appealed the board's decision in court, but the court affirmed. The township appealed, arguing that a 167-square-feet building coverage variance was not minimal. The township claimed the variance's size solely determined whether a variance were de minimis. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly granted the variance. In determining whether to grant a de minimis variance, the board had to consider not only the size of the proposed deviation, but whether rigid compliance was necessary to preserve the public interest the ordinance was supposed to protect. Rigid compliance was not necessary. The board added use restrictions to the McVeigh variance, the resulting home would be the same size as other nearby homes, and the deviations from the ordinance were only dimensional. see also: Chacona v. Zohing Board of Adjustment, 599 A.2d 255 (!991). Development. - Low-income developer says traffic was not real reason for denial Citation: Copper Field Apartments v. City of Montgomery, 934 ESupp. 1335 (Alabama) 1996 Flournoy Development Co. wanted to build a low-income housing project in a rapidly growing part of Montgomery, Ala. At a Planning Commission hearing, area residents testified the