A. Rhoades Wilson v. Plumstead Township Zoning Hearing Board

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered whether A. Rhoades Wilson was entitled to a variance allowing his property in Plumstead Township’s R-2 Residential District to be used solely as an accounting office rather than as a residence with a home occupation. The court held that the governing variance standards apply statewide, that Wilson had not established an unnecessary hardship unique to the property, and that his purchase with knowledge of the zoning restrictions did not itself create a self-inflicted hardship. The court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s denial of the variance.

Holdings

1. The variance principles discussed in Valley View and E. Torresdale are not limited to Philadelphia; they apply statewide, although the governing Philadelphia Zoning Ordinance must be applied in Philadelphia and the Municipalities Planning Code must be applied in municipalities covered by that Code.
2. Wilson failed to prove an unnecessary hardship because the property could reasonably be used in conformity with the R-2 zoning ordinance, including as a residence with a home occupation, and the alleged difficulty arose from the general character of the area rather than a hardship unique or peculiar to the property.
3. Wilson did not create a self-inflicted hardship merely by purchasing the property with knowledge of its zoning classification or by desiring to use it as a stand-alone accounting office.
4. The variance was properly denied because Wilson did not establish the unnecessary hardship required under the Municipalities Planning Code and the Plumstead Township Zoning Ordinance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's variance standards in Valley View Civic Assoc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment and E. Torresdale Civic Assoc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment apply only to Philadelphia zoning cases or also to municipalities governed by the Municipalities Planning Code.
2. Whether Wilson established an unnecessary hardship sufficient to obtain a variance allowing a stand-alone accounting office in an R-2 Residential Zoning District.
3. Whether Wilson's purchase of the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions and his desire to use it as an office constituted a self-inflicted hardship.
4. What standard of review applies when the court of common pleas takes additional evidence in a zoning appeal.

Disposition

affirmed