pf_03377 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~ 6.03[3] ZONING 6-18 applicant's mere desire for a variance, even when motivated by practical or economic reasons, does not constitute a practical difficulty.9O Likewise, an area variance is not justified upon the mere showing that the variance would be profitable to the property owner and no harm would be done to others.91 [3] Unnecessary Hardship The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act empowers the board of adjustment to authorize a variance "where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. "92 Most state enabling statutes have incorporated this language.93 However, neither the Standard Act nor existing statutes specify what constitutes "unnecessary hardship." Consequently, unnecessary hardship has been a matter for judicial definition and determination. As suggested earlier, although courts interchange the terms "practical difficulty" and "unnecessary hardship," they often require something more than practical difficulty for a use variance, and occasionally, for both use and area variances. That "something more" is some degree of unnecessary hardship. How severe the hardship must be to justify the granting of a variance is highly variable. Rather than attempting to quantify a precise measure of hardship, courts have relied on generalizations. "Mere" hardship does not justify a variance,94 since all zoning imposes some hardship. Property values are one factor in determin- safety hazards); Dave VanDenberg Inc. v. Town of Bethlehem Board of Appeals, 504 N.Y.S.2d 859 (App. Div. 1986). 90 Alumni Control Bd. v. City of Lincoln, 179 Neb. 194,137 N.W.2d 800 (1965); West Goshen Township v. Crater, 538 A.2d 952 (Pa. Commw. 1988) (an owner of two adjoining lots suffers no hardship when one lot cannot be developed because it does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of a subsequently enacted zoning ordinance since the adjoining lots, considered as a whole, do conform to the minimum lot size requirement). 91 Anderson v. Board of Appeals, 22 Md. App. 28, 322 A.2d 220 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1974). 92 SZEA ~ 7 (emphasis added). 93 See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. ~ 89.090 (1971); Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 53, ~ 10912 (Purdon 1972); Tex. Code Ann. Local Govt. Code tit. 7 ~ 211.009 (Vernon 1988). 94 In re Devereaux Foundation, Inc., 351 Pa. 478, 41 A.2d 744 (1945), appeal dismissed, 326 U.S. 686 (1945); In re Cresko, 400 Pa. 467, 162 A.2d 219 (1960).