Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

Variance-- Does board have to reconsider all variance factors on rehearing? Sweeney v. Zoning Hearing Board of Merion Township, 674 A.2d J190 (Pennsylvania) 1996 Philadelphia Properties Inc. owned an apartment complex in Lower Merion Township, Pa. Part of the complex was in a multifamily residentiai zone; the other part was in a single-family residential zone. Parking facilities in the single-family zone were not allowed to serve occupants of more than one residence. The township passed a zoning ordinance that required two parking spaces for each apartment unit, so the company's parking facilities became nonconforming. Several years later, the company wanted to modernize its complex and build a parking lot. It asked the township's Zoning Hearing Board for a vari- ance to put some parking in the single-family zone. The board denied the variance the company requested, but granted a dif- ferent :one for limited parking with 80-foot setbacks and certain buffer devices. The Sweeneys asked a court to review the board's decision. The court affirmed. The Sweeneys appealed to the state Supreme Court, which set aside the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the board. The Supreme Court decided the board did not abuse its discretion bY finding unnecessary hard- ship, but improperly failed to find unique physical circumstances. The court told the board to make such a finding. After hearing evidence about the property's topography, vegetation and neighbors, the board found the site had unique physical characteristics because of the way the zoning boundary split it. The Sweeneys appealed, and the court affirmed the board's decision. The Sweeneys appealed again. They said the board should have reconsid- ered alt five factors necessary for a variance, instead of just the unique-cir- cumstances question. DECISION: Affirmed. The 'lower court properly affirmed the board's decision. The board did not have to reconsider all five variance factors. The state Supreme Court already held that the other four factors were supported by evidence, leaving only the property's unique physical characteristics for reconsideration. The Supreme Court's decision precluded the board from reconsidering the other factors. Editor's note: The lower court's previous decision was Sweeney v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Merion Township, 573 A.2d 664 (1990). The Penn- sylvania Supreme Court's decision was Sweeney v. Zoning Hearing £oard of Lower Merion Township, 626 A.2d 1147 (1993). Spa~zg & Co. v. US); Corp., 599 A.2d 978 (J991). In re Michener Appeal, 115 A.2d 367 (]955).