Larsen v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
672 A.2d 286, 543 Pa. 415, 1996 Pa. LEXIS 190 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning variance cannot be granted for 'unnecessary hardship' based on a landowner's personal desires, such as creating a play area for a child, especially when the hardship was self-created by prior construction on the property.
Facts:
- In 1988, appellants purchased a residential property in Pittsburgh, the rear portion of which dropped off steeply, similar to neighboring lots.
- The applicable zoning ordinance required a thirty-foot setback from the rear property line.
- Shortly after purchase, appellants built a large, three-story addition to the rear of their house which complied with the setback requirement.
- This first addition significantly reduced the available space for further construction that could comply with the setback ordinance.
- In 1989, appellants wanted to build a 400 square foot deck off the rear of their house to provide a play area for their two-year-old child.
- The proposed deck would have a setback of only twelve feet, violating the thirty-foot requirement.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants sought a variance from the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment to build a deck.
- The Zoning Board granted the variance.
- Appellee, a neighboring property owner, appealed the grant of the variance to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (the trial court).
- The trial court remanded the matter to the Zoning Board for further testimony.
- After additional testimony, the Zoning Board reaffirmed its decision to grant the variance.
- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Zoning Board's decision.
- Appellee appealed the trial court's decision to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the Court of Common Pleas, thereby denying the variance.
- Appellants appealed the Commonwealth Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowner's desire to construct a deck to provide a play area for their child constitute an 'unnecessary hardship' sufficient to justify a variance from a zoning ordinance's rear-yard setback requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Castille
No. A homeowner's desire for more space to accommodate family needs does not constitute an 'unnecessary hardship' required to grant a zoning variance. To qualify for a variance, the hardship must be more than a mere personal inconvenience; it must be unique to the property, not self-created, and its denial must render the property practically useless. Here, the court found that the need for a child's play area is a personal desire, not a hardship unique to the property. Furthermore, any hardship was self-created when the appellants built a large prior addition that consumed the buildable area of their lot. The steep slope of the backyard was not a unique condition but was common to the neighborhood. Finally, the property remains perfectly usable as a residence without the deck, so denying the variance does not render it useless.
Concurring - Justice Flaherty
Yes, I agree with the result. I write separately to emphasize that a property owner does not have a legally protected right to an unobstructed view. While the neighbor's concern about the view was raised, established law holds that an adjoining landowner can erect structures that interfere with a view without giving rise to a cause of action. The variance was correctly denied based on zoning principles, not on any right to a view.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent requirements for obtaining a dimensional variance in Pennsylvania. It clarifies that the 'unnecessary hardship' standard is an objective test tied to the unique physical characteristics of the land itself, not the subjective, personal needs of the landowner. The decision serves as a strong precedent against granting variances for hardships that are self-inflicted, preventing property owners from building themselves into a corner and then seeking an exception to the rules. It upholds the integrity of zoning plans by limiting exceptions to only the most necessary cases where a property would otherwise be unusable.
Unlock the full brief for Larsen v. Zoning Board of Adjustment