Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/1997

Home

Z.B. July 10, 1997 - Page 3 one-story addition to house the synagogue's sanctuary. Located on property zoned residential, the congregation's building was more than 13,000 square feet, had 25 phone lines, and had 7,000 square feet of paved terrace outside. Despite all these amenities, the building had been used as a single-family house since it was built 15 years before. The congregation applied to the city's Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to convert the building. At a hearing before the board, the congrega- tion testified the building was too large to use as a single-family house, and promised that a synagogue would not result in traffic congestion. In addition, the congregation proposed to add parking spaces on the property. To support the congregation's claim that the building was too large for a single-family house, a real estate broker testified about her difficulty in finding potential buyers for that purpose. The congregation's architect also said the building was too large to be single-family, and said the building could not be converted into apartments without extensive demolition and reconstruc- tion. Members of the Upper Roxborough Civic Association opposed the congregation's variance request, arguing that a synagogue inevitably would cause traffic and parking problems. The board found the property's unconventional characteristics caused an unnecessary hardship, and it agreed with the congregation that the building would need significant alterations for apartments. It granted the congregation's variance request. The association appealed to court, but the court upheld the board's deci- sion. The association appealed again. It claimed the congregation failed to dem- onstrate unnecessary hardship, and did not prove the property's zoning classi- fication made the land unusable or that the property was valueless in its current state. In addition, the civic association said the copgregation had yet to prove that a variance wouldn't alter the neighborhood's character or threaten public welfare. DECISION: Reversed. For a property owner to receive a variance, it had to demonstrate more than just economic and personal difficulties to claim undue hardship. The building's previous owners had used the building as a single-family residence for 15 years, a fact that contradicted the congregation's claims. Even though the realtor had difficulty selling the property, that was an economic consideration - not an indication of unnecessary hardship. The building's large size may have impeded its use as a single-family dwelling, but it did not rule out the possibility completely. see also: Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (1983). see also: Snyder v. York City Zoning Hearing Board, 539 A.2d 916 (1988). q~