Detwiler v. Zoning Hearing Bd. - 141 Pa. Commw. 597, 596 A.2d 1156 (1991)

Rule:

Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10910.2(1968), five requirements must be met before a variance may be granted. To establish a right to a variance, a landowner must show that the effect of a zoning ordinance is to burden property with an unnecessary hardship that is unique to the property; that the hardship was not self-inflicted; that the granting of the variance will not have an adverse impact on the public health, safety and welfare; and that the variance sought is the minimum variance that will afford relief. 

Facts:

Donald and Mary Miller (Millers) own a lot consisting of approximately 2.8 acres, in Lower Salford Township and would like to construct a house thereon. On March 28, 1989, the Millers filed an application with the Board in which they requested a variance from the seventy-five foot rear yard requirement so that they could build a house on their lot. Philip and Babette Detwiler live directly across the street from the Millers' lot. The Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Salford Township (Board) granted a variance to the Millers for the construction of a house, over the opposition of the Detwilers. The Board found that without the variance, the lot could suffer "terminal sterility" and that a variance would have no adverse impact on neighboring properties.

Issue:

Was the grant of variance to the Millers proper?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

 The court affirmed, holding that the variance met the five requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10910.2. The court noted that the Millers sought only a dimensional variance and that the use that they desired, a single-family dwelling, was permitted under the local zoning ordinance. The court found that the ordinance burdened the property with an unnecessary hardship where the cumulative impact of the setback requirements made the construction of a residence so unreasonable as to be impossible and that the hardship was not self-inflicted. The court determined that to limit the lot to agricultural use would render it practically valueless due to its size and characteristics and the fact that the surrounding area was residential. The court concluded that the Detwilers failed to prove that a variance would have an adverse public impact.