Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

July 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin the trial court concluded that the Board had properly applied a more relaxed dimensional variance standard to Elias' .application (rather than a nonconforming use standard). The court also concluded that Elias met all criteria required for the variances. The Objectors again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. - The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed that the dimen- sional variance standard, rather than the nonconforming use standard, ap- plied to Elias' application for variances. The court also agreed that Elias met all criteria required for the variances. In so holding, the court explained that, pursuant to § 910.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC") and § 1325.06(a) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, one seeking a variance must: establish that the zoning ordinance imposes unnecessary hardship resulting from unique physical conditions of the property; a variance is necessary to en- able a reasonable use of the property; the asserted hardship was not self- inflicted; a grant of variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, substantially impair appropriate use or development of adjacent properties, or be detrimental to the public welfare; and the requested variance represents a minimum variance and a least possible modification of the regulation that will afford relief. Here, the court found that a dimensional variance standard applied because Elias was asking only for a "reasonable adjustment of the zoning regulations in order to utilize the [P]roperty in a manner consistent with the applicable regulations." The court explained that, in considering a dimensional variance request, multiple factors may be considered, including: "the economic detriment to the applicant if the variance was denied[;] the financial hardship created by any work necessary to bring the building into strict compliance with the zoning requirements[;] and the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood." The Objectors had not disputed that the relaxed dimensional variance standard applied to the requested variance from the 15% maximum build- ing coverage. However, the Objectors had argued that the Board should have applied the more strict use variance standard to the requested vari- ance from § 1323.04(a) of the Ordinance limiting an expansion of nonconforming use by up to 50%. The court disagreed. It found that the proposed loading dock, ramp, and warehouse would increase the size, extent, and scope of the nonconfoiuiing use but would not create a new principle use on the lot. It also found that those structures were incidental and secondary to the principle nonconforming use of the property as a farmers' market/grocery store and constituted accessory structures. Because the proposal would only increase the nonconforming use without creating a new use on the lot, the court concluded that the requested vari- ances had to be evaluated under a dimensional variance standard. In holding that Elias met all of the criteria for the variances, the court 4 © 2013 Thomson Reuters