Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 16 with the minimum lot area requirement. Contrary to the ZHB's determination, the appellate court perceived"no conflict"between the lot area and density provisions of the Township's zoning ordinance. Rather, the court found that the zoning ordinance placed a cap on the allowable density of a use permitted in the j RA-2 district, while also setting a floor for the size of a lot on which a permitted use may occur. The zoning ordinance required that lots in the RA-2 district be at least 30,000 square feet and contain a maximum of 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Here, two of 1 Revonah's proposed lots satisfied the minimum lot area require- ment, but Revonah sought a variance to increase the maximum permissible 1.2 dwelling units per acre to 1.45 dwelling units per acre.Because there was no conflict between the zoning ordinance's minimum lot area and maximum density provisions, the court concluded that the ZHB erred in positing a conflict and granting a variance on that basis. With regard to the lot width variance, the appellate court again found that the ZHB had failed to determine.that Revonah proved the requisite unnecessary hardship or that any alleged hardship was not self-inflicted. Again, the court found that Revonah was I creating the undersized lot hardship when it could make reason- able use of the property for one single-family home. The variance was sought by Revonah in an effort to maximize its profitability, which, said the court "is not sufficient to constitute unnecessary hardship." "Indeed, where no hardship is shown, or where the as- serted hardship amounts to a landowner's mere desire to increase profitability, the unnecessary hardship criterion required to obtain a variance is not satisfied even under a relaxed standard [for dimensional variances]." Moreover, the court rejected the ZHB's argument that the lot width variances should be allowed because they were only a +. "minor"deviation from one of the dimensional requirements.Not- ing that "although there is no precise mathematical percentage j that marks the dividing line between de minimis and significant deviations," the court declined to hold that the two approximately 15% deviations from the zoning ordinance's lot width require- ment sought here were de minimis t See also: Hertzberg v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249, 721 A.2d 43 (1998). See also: Andreucci v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Milford Tp., 104 Pa. Con2mw. 223, 522 A.2d 107 (1987). ©2016 Thomson Reuters 5 r.