CC_Minutes_2007_0129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

546 A.2d 755 http://web2.west1aw.comlresultldocumenttext.aspx?docsamp1<J=.fa1s... for obtaining a variance. Before a variance may be granted, Section 912(1) of the MPC requires a finding "[t]hat there are unique physical circumstances or ... physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that unnecessary hardship Is due to such conditions...." In this case, the Board considered that the building on the property was required to remain standing In order to screen the parking lot from the nearby residences. Further, the Board also considered the fact that the parking lot in the rear made the property less desirable as a single family residence. Lill i5I Appellant argues that any hardship In this case does not rise to the level of "unnecessary." We believe that O'Neill v. Philadelphia ZonlnQ Board of Adjustment, 384 Pa. 379. 120 A.2d 901 (1956) applies. There, a building which predated the zoning ordinance was used as a commercial garage. The zoning ordinance classified the area as residential. The applicant proposed to partition the first fioor, using one portion to park her car and the remainder as a private ballet studio. The board then granted the variance finding that the proposed use (1) was far less "obnoxious" than the use as a garage, (2) would not adversely affect the neighborhood and (3) the *l71 property could not easily be converted to a residence. The trial court reversed by concluding that the board had abused Its discretion In finding an unnecessary hardship because of Its belief that the making of expenditures to convert to a residence was not an unnecessary hardship. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court first noted that the case was distinguishable from those cases where one was claiming unnecessary hardship because the zoning laws prevented the owner from realizing the property's maxImum value. As the Supreme Court stated, "It Is the required conversion of the premises in **759 question from a nonconforming to a conforming use at substantial cost, claimed by the [landowner] to be financially Impracticable" [d. at 384, 120 A.2d at 904 (emphasis In original). The Court went on to state: While It Is true that a board of adjustment may only grant a variance If ordinance alleged hardship Is substantial and of compelling force, we are of the opinion that the appellants have shown singular circumstances which would Justify a departure from ordinance strict letter of the zoning regulations. The Board's discretion Is not so circumscribed as to require a property owner to reconstruct a building a conforming use regardless of the financial burden that would be Incident thereto. Especially is this true where the change sought is from one nonconforming use to another more desirable nonconforming used that will not adversely affect but better the neighborhood.... We have repeatedly held that the decision of a zoning board should be reversed only where It has fiagrantly abused its discretion. In the Instant case the court below based Its decision solely upon the nonexistence of 'unnecessary hardships'. As before Indicated, In our opinion the conclusion Is not Justified. *l72 [d. at 386, 120 A.2d at 904-05. Accord LOQan Square NeiQhborhood Association v. ZoninQ Board of Adjustment, 32 Pa.Commonwealth 277, 379 A.2d 632 (1977) . We believe the similarities between O'Neill and the present case are such that O'Neill controls and requires us to reject appellant's argument that the hospital failed to prove an unnecessary hardship. While appellant argues that O'Neill Is distinguishable because the renovations there were much more substantial than would have been required In the present case, that attempted distinction 15 unwarranted. A building which had been used as a banquet hall would require substantial renovation to return to a single family residence. Furthermore, Ault, the hospital's vice president, testified that extensive Interior work would be needed to convert to a single family residence. As the former use was nonconforming, substantial expenditure need not be made In light of O'Neill. U1l ~ Appellant next argues that the grant of a variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Appellant argues that use as an office would create so much traffic that It would alter the present residential character. There was testimony In the record that an office housing seven employees would require less traffic that a motel's banquet hall, especially when the employees work only from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. The Board found that the proposed use would not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. We believe this factual finding is supported by evidence In the record. 70f8 12/29120064:56 PM