Malakoff v. Board Adjustment

13 Citing cases

  1. Zimmerman v. Philadelphia Zoning Bd.

    654 A.2d 1054 (Pa. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    We find the Commonwealth Court's conclusions under the circumstances of this case to be premature and incorrect. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court premised its finding of unnecessary hardship on the fact that if City Council refuses to dedicate the street as a public street, the proposed lots will be landlocked. See Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 72 Pa. Commw. 109, 456 A.2d 1110 (1983). The court went further to hold that the hardship was not self-created because the hardship would be created by City Council's actions, which are out of the control of Thackeray.

  2. Cromwell v. Ward

    102 Md. App. 691 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that the Baltimore County Board’s grant of a variance was "arbitrary and illegal" because the applicant had not introduced evidence to establish the uniqueness element

    558, 480 A.2d 362 (1984) (burden sustained); Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 78 Pa.Cmwlth. 645, 468 A.2d 1183 (1983) (burden sustained); Malakoff v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 72 Pa. Cmwlth. 109, 456 A.2d 1110 (1983); Immordino v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 65 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, 441 A.2d 818, 821 (1982) ("[P]roperty owner must sustain the heavy burden of proving that the zoning ordinance imposes an unnecessary hardship which is unique to his particular property. . . .") (Emphasis added.)

  3. Omatick v. Cecil Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

    286 A.3d 413 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    Bachman v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Bern Twp. , 508 Pa. 180, 494 A.2d 1102, 1106 (1985) (emphasis added). Thus, in Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh , 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 109, 456 A.2d 1110 (1983), this Court agreed with the appellant objectors that "since [a] portion of the property ... had never before been devoted to a nonconforming use, and there are no provisions in the [zoning c]ode to allow that use as a special exception, [the proposed use] may only be accomplished by the grant of a variance." Id. at 1112 (emphasis added); see alsoCity of Phila. v. Angelone , 3 Pa.Cmwlth. 119, 280 A.2d 672, 677 (1971) ("Structures may be erected on open land previously devoted to a nonconforming use, as of right."

  4. McCarry v. Haverford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

    113 A.3d 381 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    This court has held that “a property which is completely landlocked, with no public street frontage, exhibits a physical feature which can establish unnecessary hardship.” Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 109, 456 A.2d 1110, 1113 (1983). However, in cases where we have held that a property's landlocked nature creates an unnecessary hardship, the landlocked property was the subject of the requested variance.

  5. Neilson v. Zoning Hearing Board

    786 A.2d 1049 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Initially, we observe that Appellants do not take issue with the Board's finding that Coyle's property is landlocked because it does not front on a public street. Both Filanowski v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 439 Pa. 360, 266 A.2d 670 (1970), and Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 456 A.2d 1110 (Pa. Cmlwth. 1983), stand for the proposition that property which is landlocked, with no public street frontage exhibits a physical feature which can establish unnecessary hardship. Nonetheless, Appellants claim that such a physical feature, i.e., the fact that the property is landlocked does not distinguish Coyle's property from other lots in Mt. Lebanon, which similarly do not front a public street.

  6. Hill Dist. Project Area v. Zoning Bd.

    162 Pa. Commw. 323 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1994)   Cited 16 times
    In Hill District, similar facts were presented wherein a business sought variances to construct a parking garage two blocks away from its place of business for use primarily by its employees.

    The present matter stands in contrast to Whitpain Township in which this Court held that the burden of airport "clear zone" restrictions fell uniquely upon the applicant's property, thus justifying unnecessary hardship. Also in contrast is Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 72 Pa. Commw. 109, 456 A.2d 1110 (1983), in which this Court held that a landowner established a hardship peculiar to the property in question which was landlocked and situated at the base of a steep slope. Rather, this situation is similar to West Torresdale Civic Ass'n, wherein the purported hardship of the restrictions was not caused by any physical circumstances of the applicant's property, but by that of neighboring property, and thus the hardship was not unique to the applicant's land.

  7. Zimmerman v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment

    156 Pa. Commw. 618 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    A completely landlocked property with no public street frontage exhibits a physical feature which can establish unnecessary hardship. Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 72 Pa. Commw. 109, 456 A.2d 1110 (1983). Under such circumstances, the owner is entitled to a variance under the holding of Pfile v. Borough of Speers, 7 Pa. Commw. 226, 298 A.2d 598 (1972), wherein this Court stated that:

  8. Appeal of Gregor

    156 Pa. Commw. 418 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1993)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that "[t]he burden is placed upon the party who asserts a physical merger to establish" that merger is required

    A completely landlocked property such as Lot 41 with no public street frontage exhibits a physical feature which can establish unnecessary hardship to support a variance. Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 72 Pa. Commw. 109, 456 A.2d 1110 (1983). The trial court's reliance upon Glennon v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Milford Township, 108 Pa. Commw. 371, 529 A.2d 1171 (1987), is inapposite because in that case, the hardship resulting from the lack of frontage on a public or approved private street was created by partition of the larger lot through a tax sale subsequent to enactment of the zoning ordinance, which distinguishes it from the matter sub judice.

  9. Spring Garden Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

    151 Pa. Commw. 413 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1992)   Cited 5 times
    Existing nonconforming structure may be put to any permitted use so long as altered use does not increase nonconformity of structure

    If the ZBA committed an error of law, we may reach an alternate conclusion if that conclusion is supported by the findings. Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment, 72 Pa. Commw. 109, 113, 456 A.2d 1110, 1113 (1983). The findings must be supported by substantial evidence which means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

  10. Snyder et ux. v. York City Z.H.B

    115 Pa. Commw. 68 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 4 times
    In Snyder v. York City Zoning Hearing Board, 115 Pa. Commw. 68, 539 A.2d 915 (1988), this Court noted that it does not condone the late filing of findings of fact, but did not remand the matter for new findings because careful scrutiny of the record indicated that the landowners suffered no prejudice due to the late filing.

    Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550, 462 A.2d 637 (1983). This Court held in Malakoff v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 72 Pa. Commw. 109, 113, 456 A.2d 1110, 1113 (1983) that, "[a] variance may be granted when strict application of the zoning ordinance would result in a unique burden which creates an unnecessary hardship peculiar to the subject property; provided that the grant of the variance does not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare." (Citation omitted.)