Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

August 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin tion, Schadt testified that: the financial services office would only have eight employees; the employees would park off site; only two or three clients would visit the office per week; and no changes would be made to the exterior of the building. The City's Zoning Hearing Board ("Zoning Board") concluded that Schadt had failed to establish the requisite hardship for a use variance and denied her request for such relief. Schadt appealed. The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Zoning Board's decision. Schadt again appealed. On appeal, Schadt contended that the presence of nonconforming commercial uses on the Property was, itself, a unique physical condition which, in combination with the zoning regulations, created an unnecessary hardship. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. Disagreeing with Schadt's argument, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Schadt failed to demonstrate the requisite hard- ship for a use variance to convert her residential home into a suite of professional offices. In so holding, the court explained that an applicant for a variance must establish all of the following elements: "(1) an unnecessary hardship will result if the variance is denied, due to the unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property; (2) because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and a variance is necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; (3) the hardship is not self-inflicted; (4) granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and (5) the variance sought is the minimum variance that will af- ford relief." Moreover, explained the court, an applicant seeking a use variance is not required to show that the property is valueless without the variance, but she must show more than "mere economic hardship," particularly, as here, where "a variance is sought in order to make a change from an existing use consistent with the zoning code to an inconsistent use." Evaluating those elements, the court agreed with the Zoning Board that Schadt's evidence did not establish an unnecessary hardship. The court noted that the historical use of the home—for over 164 years—as a residence "belie[d] the claim that the property [could] not be used without a variance." The court further found that an inability to sell the property in less than four months did not represent a hardship that would justify a variance. At most it was a "mere economic hardship," said the court. Moreover, the fact that the buyer did not intend to change the exterior of the home was insignificant, said the court, as historic preser- vation differs from land use and the City regulated the neighborhood as residential under its land use regulations. 8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters