variance error in Pennsylvania

2007The court approved the building permit without the need for a variance or exception because the expansion was "a logical, reasonable and natural structural change in the building which neither increases any nonconformity of its use nor violates any provision of the zoning ordinance and in nowise affects the general welfare of the neighborhood or of the adjoining property owners." Yocum, 393 Pa. at 155 , 141 A.2d at 605-606 . 11 .

2007The court approved the building permit without the need for a variance or exception because the expansion was "a logical, reasonable and natural structural change in the building which neither increases any nonconformity of its use nor violates any provision of the zoning ordinance and in nowise affects the general welfare of the neighborhood or of the adjoining property owners." Yocum, 393 Pa. at 155 , 141 A.2d at 605-606 . 11 .

2025Zoning hearing boards are administrative bodies created by the legislature, and their power “is limited to that conferred expressly by the legislature, or by necessary implication.” Leopardi, 532 A.2d at 313 .

2025Id; Pham, 113 A.3d at 892 ; Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia, 814 A.2d 847, 850 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

2024The Supreme Court explained that “[w]hen seeking a dimensional variance within a permitted use, the owner is asking only for a reasonable adjustment of the zoning regulations in order to utilize the property in a manner consistent with the applicable regulations.” 721 A.2d at 47 .

2024Further, this Court restated the rule that where an applicant seeks a variance, the natural expansion doctrine does not dispose of the need to conduct a variance inquiry.4 Rather, this Court explained: 4 Nothing in Silver indicates that a party seeking a variance for an expansion of a nonconforming residential structure need not meet the ordinary requirements for the grant of a variance; such an applicant must still establish that refusal to grant such a variance would cause an unnecessary hardship peculiar to that property and that grant of the variance would not be contrary to the health, sa

2019Id. at 466 .

2016Objector also cites Society Hill Civic Association v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 42 A.3d 1178 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), where this Court reversed the zoning board’s grant of a variance from the requirement of a loading area for buildings greater than 50,000 square feet.

2003Rollins Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Zoning Bd., 108 Pa.Cmwlth. 277 , 529 A.2d 99 , 102 *1217 (1987) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted).

2003Rollins Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Zoning Bd., 108 Pa.Cmwlth. 277 , 529 A.2d 99 , 102 *1217 (1987) (footnote omitted) (citation omitted).

2003Ultimately, we agreed with this characterization of the proposal and with its legality. [8] As has been noted, nonconforming structures (in contrast to nonconforming uses) have no protected right to expand in violation or further violation of the municipality's regulations governing the area, bulk, dimension, or intensity of development. [9] Compare Appeal of Heidorn, 412 Pa. 570 , 195 A.2d 349 (Pa.1963).

2003Ultimately, we agreed with this characterization of the proposal and with its legality. [8] As has been noted, nonconforming structures (in contrast to nonconforming uses) have no protected right to expand in violation or further violation of the municipality's regulations governing the area, bulk, dimension, or intensity of development. [9] Compare Appeal of Heidorn, 412 Pa. 570 , 195 A.2d 349 (Pa.1963).

1996Sweeney, supra, 534 Pa. at 208 , 626 A.2d at 1153 .

1994Vagnoni v. *233 Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township, 74 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 431, 459 A.2d 1361 (1983).

1992SGH argues that Everson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 395 Pa. 168 , 149 A.2d 63 (1959) and Civera v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 39 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 499, 395 A.2d 700 (1979), compel the conclusion that the grant of the variance was not an error of law.

1992SGH argues that Everson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 395 Pa. 168 , 149 A.2d 63 (1959) and Civera v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 39 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 499, 395 A.2d 700 (1979), compel the conclusion that the grant of the variance was not an error of law.

1992SGH argues that Everson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 395 Pa. 168 , 149 A.2d 63 (1959) and Civera v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 39 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 499, 395 A.2d 700 (1979), compel the conclusion that the grant of the variance was not an error of law.

1992SGH argues that Everson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 395 Pa. 168 , 149 A.2d 63 (1959) and Civera v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 39 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 499, 395 A.2d 700 (1979), compel the conclusion that the grant of the variance was not an error of law.

1987In a limited number of cases the doctrine has been applied to permit a variance where the violation of the ordinance was minor and to do otherwise would require the moving of a building 6 and where rigid compliance with the ordinance was not necessary to protect the public policy concerns underlying the ordinance. 7 King v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Nazareth, 76 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 318 , 463 A.2d 505 (1983).

1987In a limited number of cases the doctrine has been applied to permit a variance where the violation of the ordinance was minor and to do otherwise would require the moving of a building 6 and where rigid compliance with the ordinance was not necessary to protect the public policy concerns underlying the ordinance. 7 King v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Nazareth, 76 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 318 , 463 A.2d 505 (1983).

1981See, for example, Cutler v. Newtown Toumship Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 430 , 367 A.2d 772 (1976) ; Blouch Zoning Ordinance Appeal, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 147 , 362 A.2d 1139 (1976) ; Upper Moreland Township Board of Commissioners v. Zoning Hearing Board, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 626 , 361 A.2d 455 (1976) ; In Re: Appeal of Louis J.

1981See, for example, Cutler v. Newtown Toumship Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 430 , 367 A.2d 772 (1976) ; Blouch Zoning Ordinance Appeal, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 147 , 362 A.2d 1139 (1976) ; Upper Moreland Township Board of Commissioners v. Zoning Hearing Board, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 626 , 361 A.2d 455 (1976) ; In Re: Appeal of Louis J.

1981See, for example, Cutler v. Newtown Toumship Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 430 , 367 A.2d 772 (1976) ; Blouch Zoning Ordinance Appeal, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 147 , 362 A.2d 1139 (1976) ; Upper Moreland Township Board of Commissioners v. Zoning Hearing Board, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 626 , 361 A.2d 455 (1976) ; In Re: Appeal of Louis J.

1981See, for example, Cutler v. Newtown Toumship Zoning Hearing Board, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 430 , 367 A.2d 772 (1976) ; Blouch Zoning Ordinance Appeal, 26 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 147 , 362 A.2d 1139 (1976) ; Upper Moreland Township Board of Commissioners v. Zoning Hearing Board, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 626 , 361 A.2d 455 (1976) ; In Re: Appeal of Louis J.

1975Rep. 573, 580 (1968), aff’d 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 222 , 273 A. 2d 557 (1971), where the cases are collected and analyzed. 5 Under the limited facts of this case, we must conclude that where a property is located in an area in which public sewers will not be available in the foreseeable future, where no other means of public sewage have been established as feasible, and where an applicant has obtained all necessary permits for on-site sewage from the agency vested with jurisdiction to approve such facilities, an unnecessary hardship peculiar to the applicant’s property has been established to

1975Rep. 573, 580 (1968), aff’d 1 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 222 , 273 A. 2d 557 (1971), where the cases are collected and analyzed. 5 Under the limited facts of this case, we must conclude that where a property is located in an area in which public sewers will not be available in the foreseeable future, where no other means of public sewage have been established as feasible, and where an applicant has obtained all necessary permits for on-site sewage from the agency vested with jurisdiction to approve such facilities, an unnecessary hardship peculiar to the applicant’s property has been established to

1972McClure Appeal, 415 Pa. 285 , 203 A. 2d 534 (1964); Andress, supra. For the foregoing reasons, we must hold that the court below manifestly abused its discretion in factually finding that “the shape and size of this subject property is so unique as to make it difficult to build a single family dwelling on it without creating a hardship on the landowner.” In addition, for the court to hold that the hardship which does result from the difficulty to market houses on irregularly shaped lots is sufficient to sustain a variance was an error of law.

1972McClure Appeal, 415 Pa. 285 , 203 A. 2d 534 (1964); Andress, supra. For the foregoing reasons, we must hold that the court below manifestly abused its discretion in factually finding that “the shape and size of this subject property is so unique as to make it difficult to build a single family dwelling on it without creating a hardship on the landowner.” In addition, for the court to hold that the hardship which does result from the difficulty to market houses on irregularly shaped lots is sufficient to sustain a variance was an error of law.