In this case a property owner sought a variance to allow more retail space on the ground floor of his building than 1,500 square feet permitted by the zoning ordinance.
![](http://www.pazoninglawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/planning.jpg)
The ZHB denied the variance request, treating it as a use variance. The property owner appealed, claiming the ZHB erred by classifying the variance request as a use variance instead of a dimensional variance. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding that regardless of whether the variance was classified as a use or a dimensional variance, the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof.
http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1867CD17_10-11-18.pdf?cb=1
Leave a Reply