VARIANCE - HARDSHIP TO PROPERTY NOT PERSON.
Yeager v. ZHB of the City of Allentown, Pa. Commw. (June 14, 2001)
Cite: 779 A.2d 595
Cross Reference: MPC 910.2
Automobile dealership sought variance of setback requirements and clear sight triangle in order to construct a building whose size was specified by the automobile manufacturer. The variance was ultimately denied because a smaller building suitable for a car dealership, although not meeting the manufacturer's specifications, could be located on the site and still satisfy the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. The economic hardship argued by the automobile dealer was not created by the property but by the owner's desire to build a larger building which would satisfy the manufacturer whose vehicles the dealership sought to sell. A variance, whether dimensional or use, is appropriate only where the property, not the person, is subject to hardship.
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top