Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

May 25, 2016 ( Volume 10 'Issue 10 Zoning Bulletin VarianceNeighborchallenges city's grant of a temporary use variance City maintains temporary variances are not subject to the same criteria as permanent variances Citation: Coyle v. City of Lebanon Zoning Hearing Bd., 2016 WL 1128292 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2016) PENNSYLVANIA (03/23/16) This case addressed the issue of whether a temporary use variance is subject to the same criteria as a per- manent variance. The Background/Facts: In 2014, Pier N. Hess ("Hess") purchased a single-family home in the City of Lebanon (the "City"). Hess' home was located in the City's Residential Medium Density ("RMD") zoning district. Hess operated her law practice from her home. Professional and business offices were not permitted uses in the RMD zoning district under the City's Zoning Code. Hess applied to the City's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB") for a use variance so that she could lease two of the unused bedrooms in her house to two other attorneys for use two days per week. The ZHB unanimously granted Hess a temporary use variance to operate the professional business offices. The variance was subject to certain conditions, including that it would be reviewed by the ZHB every four years to determine the continuance of the variance. Hess' neighbor, Catherine Coyle ("Coyle") appealed the ZHB's deci- sion to the trial court. Among other things, she argued that the ZHB erred by granting Hess a temporary variance without proof by substantial evi- dence that certain conditions unique to the Hess' property would cause unnecessary hardship in the absence of the variance. Under § 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (the "MPC"), a zoning board may grant a variance if certain findings are met, including, among other things, a finding that there is an "unnecessary hardship" due to unique physical circumstances or conditions at the par- ticular property. The City's Zoning Code incorporated identical requirements. It was undisputed that the ZHB granted Hess a variance without any finding supported by substantial evidence of each of the variance criteria set forth in § 910.2 of the MPC and § 1307.08 of the City's Zoning Code. The ZHB had implied in its decision that temporary variances are not subject to all of the variance criteria set forth in § 910.2 of the MPC and § 1307.08 of the City's Zoning Code. The trial court denied Coyle's appeal and upheld the ZHB's decision granting Hess a temporary variance. 10 ©2016 Thomson Reuters