Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County in case of A & D, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board, East Nottingham Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, No. 44 July Term, 1975.
William H. Mitman, Jr., for appellant.
Robert W. Lentz and John C. Snyder, with them Eric S. Coates, and, of counsel, Lentz, Riley, Cantor, Kilgore & Massey, Ltd., for appellees.
Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of two. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 32 Pa. Commw. Page 369]
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County affirming the dismissal by the Zoning Hearing Board (Board) of East Nottingham Township (Township) of a variance application by the appellant A & D, Inc. We affirm the denial of a variance.
The appellant owns 67 acres of land in East Nottingham Township and seeks a variance allowing the construction of 900 apartment units. Fifty-five (55) apartment units are already constructed on the tract, having been proposed for development prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance by the Township in 1971. Under the terms of this ordinance the appellant's tract is zoned R-1, which does not allow for apartment usage.*fn1
The 67 acre tract in question was originally purchased in 1969 by Alisa Construction Company (Alisa). It was this Company that arranged the development of the 55 unit apartment complex. In August of 1973, A & D, Inc. purchased the land from Alisa for a nominal consideration. This purchase, of course, was subsequent to the enactment of the zoning ordinance by the Township, and was made with full knowledge of the R-1 classification afforded the 67 acre tract. Alisa and A & D, Inc. are owned by the same individuals and have the same key officers. They are, however, entirely separate corporate entities.
[ 32 Pa. Commw. Page 370]
Appellant is in this case seeking a validity variance. Such a variance is based on the theory that an otherwise valid ordinance is confiscatory when applied to a particular tract of land, in that it deprives the owner of any reasonable use of his property. Township Page 370} of Neville v. Exxon Corp., 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 225, 322 A.2d 144 (1974). The statutory requirements for a variance, found in Section 912 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10912, must be met when seeking a validity variance. These requirements may be summarized as follows: (1) the ordinance imposes an unnecessary hardship on the property; (2) the hardship results from the unique physical characteristics of the property; (3) the granting of a variance will not have an adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the general public; (4) the hardship must not be self-inflicted; and, (5) the variance sought is the minimum variance that will afford relief. See Marple Gardens, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 8 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 436, 303 A.2d 239 (1973).
There is no doubt but that appellant's property possesses physical characteristics which create a certain amount of difficulty. Almost 70%*fn2 of the 67 acre tract is not suitable for on-lot sanitary waste disposal systems, compared with a much lower average for the area immediately surrounding the tract in question. As a result, the per lot costs for a development of 37 single-family dwellings could be such as to price the homes above the present market in the area, which is for homes in the $40,000-$45,000 price range.
In essence, the Board found that the appellant could develop his property under the terms of the ordinance without pricing his homes substantially out of the market. The appellant contests this finding, arguing that the record requires the ...