Laserfiche WebLink
June 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin <br />Addressing, the Pham-Mullers' inadequacy argument directly, the <br />court concluded that, in this case, "because the ZHB's tie vote decision <br />[was] valid as a matter of law, . . . and because the ZHB's decision sets <br />forth findings of fact upon which its members agreed, noted the relevant <br />legal standards, and explained that its tie vote constituted a denial of the <br />variance as a matter of law," here the court concluded that "the absence <br />of additional findings or conclusions [did] not constitute an abuse of <br />discretion and that the decision [was] adequate for purposes of appellate <br />review." <br />Also disagreeing with the Pham-Mullers' second argument, the ap- <br />pellate court held that the ZHB did not abuse its discretion in denying <br />the variance because the Pham-Mullers failed to provide sufficient evi- <br />dence to establish their right to a variance. Most significantly, the court <br />noted that the Pham-Mullers had not established the variance criteria of <br />showing unnecessary hardship. The court explained that "in the context <br />of use variances, unnecessary hardship is established by evidence that: <br />`(1) the physical features of the property are such that it cannot be used <br />for a permitted purpose; or (2) the property can be conformed for a <br />permitted purpose only at a prohibitive expense; or (3) the property has <br />no value for any purpose permitted by the zoning ordinance.' " The <br />court found that the Pham-Mullers had not testified that the home could <br />not be improved for purposes of maintaining it as a single-family resi- <br />dence or that it would be economically prohibitive to, make necessary <br />improvements for use as a single-family- residence; they had only opined <br />that it would be "more reasonable" to use the property as a B & B. Ac- <br />cordingly, the court concluded that the Pham-Mullers were not entitled <br />to a variance as a matter of law. <br />See also: Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Whitehall <br />Tp., 93 Pa. Commw. 437, 501 A.2d 353 (1985). <br />See also: Danwell Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Plymouth Tp., 108 <br />Pa. Commw. 531, 529 A.2d 1215 (1987). <br />See also: Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014). <br />4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />