Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2015 Volume 9 Issue 16 <br />disagreed. The court noted that the County Commissioners had found <br />the rezoning would be consistent with the comprehensive plan because <br />the rezoning application "promoted quality growth of manufacturing <br />within the county convenient to transportation facilities." • <br />The court concluded that the record supported a reasonable basis for <br />the County Commissioners' decision and did not establish the County <br />Commissioners' decision constituted impermissible spot zoning. <br />See also: Gullickson v. Stark County Bd. of County Com'rs, 474 <br />N. W..2d 890 (N.D. 1991). <br />See also: Bigwood v. City of Wahpeton, 1997 ND 124, 565 N. W 2d <br />498 (N.D. 1997). <br />Variance Property Owner seeks <br />use variance to convert <br />residential home to suite of <br />offices <br />City finds lack of necessary hardship to <br />warrant variance <br />Citation: Schadt v. City of Bethlehem Zoning Hearing Bd., 2015 WL <br />3915949 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (06/26/15)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether an applicant for a use variance—to convert a residential home <br />to a suite of offices—established the necessary hardship to warrant a use <br />variance. <br />The Background/Facts: Mary E. Schadt ("Schadt") owned property <br />(the "Property") in the City of Bethlehem (the "City"). The Property was <br />located in a High Density Residential zoning district and in a Historic <br />District. On the property were three detached buildings: a three-story <br />single-family dwelling that had been occupied by Schadt's family for 40 <br />years and as a residence for a century prior; a detached garage with a <br />vacant apartment above; and a building containing two small, one-story <br />book shops which were lawfully nonconforming uses because they <br />predated the City's zoning ordinance. <br />Schadt had tried for four months to sell the Property but found that <br />potential buyers for Property were not interested in the commercial and <br />apartment uses and vice versa. After four months, Schadt reached an <br />agreement to sell the Property to a financial services company. Schadt <br />applied to the City for a use variance to convert the existing single- <br />family dwelling into a financial services office. In support of her applica- <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />