|
<br />6-19
<br />
<br />PROCEDURES
<br />
<br />~ 6.03[3]
<br />
<br />ing degree of hardship.95 However, an increase or decrease in land
<br />value as a result of the granting or denial of a variance does not in
<br />itself constitute a sufficient unnecessary hardship.96 There must be a
<br />substantial economic effect for the courts to find an unnecessary
<br />hardship. A variance is only justified where the property cannot
<br />yield a reasonable return under the existing zoning,96.1 or stated
<br />differently, where the zoning prevents any reasonable use of the
<br />property.97
<br />There is a critical qualification to the hardship standard. Although
<br />the variance is property specific (i.e., hardship must relate to
<br />specific character of land, not circumstances of the owner), the
<br />property owner is considered in one respect. The hardship must
<br />arise naturally from the unique character of the property and not
<br />from the owner's actions.98 The hardship cannot be self-created.99
<br />In its simplest form, this means a new owner who subdivides or
<br />
<br />95 See, e.g., Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550,
<br />462 A.2d 637 (1983).
<br />96 In re Cresko, 400 Pa. 467, 162 A.2d 219 (1960); Appeal of Buckingham
<br />Developers, Inc., 61 Pa. Commw. 408, 433 A.2d 931 (1981); Ramondo v. Zoning
<br />Hearing Bd., 61 Pa. Commw. 242,434 A.2d 204 (1981); Rhode Island Trust Nat'1
<br />Bank v. East Providence Zoning Bd. of Review, 444 A.2d 862 (R.I. 1982); cf City of
<br />East Providence v. R.I. Hospital Trust Nat'l Bank, 505 A.2d 1143 (R.I. 1986)
<br />(criticizing the failure to balance equities before requiring removal of nonconforming
<br />structure) .
<br />96.1 Grand Beach Ass'n v. Town of Old Orchard Beach, 516 A.2d 551 (Me. 1986)
<br />(variance denied even though this would cause a $1.2 million drop in income because
<br />reasonable return does not mean maximum return).
<br />97 Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 24 N.E. 2d 851 (1939); Ingnelzi v. Zoning Bd.
<br />of Adjustment, 62 Pa. Commw. 101,433 A.2d 158 (1981); Schaefer v. Zoning Bd. of
<br />Adjustment, 62 Pa. Commw. 104, 435 A.2d 289 (1981); Gadhue v. Marcotte, 141
<br />Vt. 238, 446 A.2d 375 (1982); Goldstein v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of
<br />Hempstead, 113 Misc. 2d 756, 449 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982); Radnor
<br />Industries, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Radnor Tp., 75 Pa. Commw. 397,461 A.2d
<br />1343 (1983); Lipari v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Easton, 516 A.2d 110 (Pa.
<br />Commw. 1986).
<br />98 Haynes v. City of Tucson, 784 P.2d 715 (Ariz. 1989) (grant of variance
<br />overturned where special circumstances related only to landowners' plan to construct
<br />an overly large restaurant). R-N-R Assoc. v. ZOl)ing Bd. of Review, 100 R.I. 7, 210
<br />A.2d 653 (1965); Van Horen v. Zoning Bd. of Warwick Tp., 60 Pa. Commw. 459,
<br />431 A.2d 1169 (1981); Richardson v. Town of Salisbury, 123 N.H. 93, 455 A.2d
<br />1059 (1983); Martel v. City of Vancouver (Wash.) Bd. of Adjustment, 35 Wash. App.
<br />250, 666 P.2d 916 (1983).
<br />99Ignelzi v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 61 Pa. Commw. 101, 433 A.2d 158
<br />(1981); Pollard v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 186 Conn. 32, 438 A.2d 1186 (1982);
<br />Matter of Schrader, 660 P.2d 135 (Okla. 1983); Gardner v. City of Harahan, 504 So.
<br />2d 1107 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
<br />
<br />(Release #5, 2/91)
<br />
|