pf_03377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ 6.03[2] ZONING 6-16 the sections which follow.83 It is worth noting, however, that there are few limitations on a zoning board's discretion in variance cases. While some courts require that the board of zoning appeals both specify the standard it employs and demonstrate findings to support its application of the standard,84 this is seldom a meaningful constraint on administrative, and ultimately, judicial equity. Hence, a landowner is well-advised to pursue variance relief in more cases than the standards would ordinarily suggest. As one example, an area variance may be granted even when the traditional standards for a variance are not met if the deviation is de minimis and rigid compliance is not necessary to further the ordinance's policy concerns.84.05 Research References: For further discussion of all issues relating to variances, see Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning ch. 38. For a discussion of the role of zoning boards in variance cases, see Rathkopf ch. 37. [2] Practical Difficulty "Practical difficulty," the standard usually applied to area variances,84.1 has not been precisely defined. However, case law does suggest some general guidelines for proving the existence of a practical difficulty. For the most part, practical difficulty is a relative concept. The benefits to the requesting party are balanced against the cost to others, including the impact on the ordinance's goals (if discernible) as well as the economic and noneconomic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 83 See generally infra ~ 6.0312]-16]. 84 Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506,113 Cal. Rptr. 836, 522 P.2d 12 (1974); see also Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1, 526 A.2d 109 (1987) (attempting to limit zoning boards' discretion by requiring boards to determine whether proposed variances can be reconciled with the master plan and to make specific findings supporting all their conclusions in order for such boards to be upheld on appeal). 84.05 Stewart v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Radnor Township, 531 A.2d 1180 (Pa. Commw. 1987) (area variance granted where ordinance required one-acre minimum lot size and subdivision of land left one lot with only .99966 of an acre). 84.1 The landowner may only need an area, rather than the more difficult to obtain use, variance in the context of an application for the conversion of a single-family to a duplex use. Kisil v. City of Sandusky, 465 N.E.2d 848 (Ohio 1984).