Laserfiche WebLink
August 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin <br /> The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the ZHB <br /> erred in granting the density and lot width variances. <br /> In so holding, the court explained that a "dimensional variance <br /> 1 <br /> involves a request to adjust zoning regulations to use the property <br /> in a manner consistent with regulations, whereas a use variances <br /> involves a request to use property in a manner that is wholly <br /> outside zoning regulations."The court said that, for both a use and <br /> dimensional variance, a ZHB may grant the variance only wheni <br /> the following criteria are met: 1 <br /> "(1) an unnecessary hardship will result if the variance is denied, j <br /> due to the unique physical circumstances or conditions of the prop- <br /> erty; (2) because of such physical circumstances or conditions the <br /> property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the provi- <br /> sions of the zoning ordinance and a variance is necessary to enable i <br /> the reasonable use of the property; (3) the hardship is not self- <br /> inflicted; (4) granting the variance will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood nor be detrimental to the public <br /> I <br /> elfare; and (5) the variance sought is the minimum variance that <br /> will afford relief." <br /> With regard to the "unnecessary hardship" criteria, the court <br /> acknowledged that there was a more relaxed standard for a <br /> dimensional variance than for a use variance, but that even for a <br /> dimensional variance the applicant"must still present evidence as <br /> to each of the conditions listed in the zoning ordinance, including <br /> unnecessary hardship." "Where no hardship is shown, or where <br /> the asserted hardship amounts to a landowner's desire to increase <br /> profitability or maximize development potential, the unnecessary <br /> hardship criterion required to obtain a variance is not satisfied <br /> even under the relaxed standard," said the court. <br /> Here, the court found that the ZHB had made no determination <br /> that Revonah had proven the requisite unnecessary hardship or <br /> that any alleged unnecessary hardship was not self-inflicted. <br /> Rather, noted the court, Revonah only needed the variance from <br /> the maximum density requirement because it intended to subdivide <br /> the property and build two homes resulting in a violation of the <br /> maximum density requirement despite the fact that it could use the <br /> property for one compliant home. Thus,Revonah was creating the <br /> alleged hardship it was seeking to remedy, and could actually use <br /> the property for one compliant home without the need for zoning <br /> relief. <br /> Nevertheless, the ZHB had granted the "variance" from the <br /> maximum density requirement on the ground that it conflicted <br /> 4 ©2016 Thomson Reuters <br />