# Hamilton v. Zoning Hearing Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · March 12, 1981 · 57 Pa. Commw. 451

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6367187

## Case

- **Full name:** Florence M. Hamilton v. Zoning Hearing Board of Whitemarsh Township
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 12, 1981
- **Citations:** 57 Pa. Commw. 451; 426 A.2d 1309; 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1294
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rogers
- **Judges:** Blatt, Mercer, Rogers
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6367187

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Rogers:
I dissent because in my opinion it was not necessary for the Board to make each and every one of the five findings enumerated in Section 912 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10912. It was the landowner’s position that the residential zoning of the rear portion of its lot *456 made that portion of the property useless; that the zoning restriction was therefore invalid; and that the variance allowing another use was required to provide the landowner with its constitutional right in its property. The findings required by Section 912 become irrelevant. This point is made in R. Ryan, Pennsylvania Zoning Law and Practice, Section 6.1.8 (1970):
Where an owner’s land ... is denied any reasonable use by an unduly restrictive ordinance, the findings [of Section 912] are not ‘relevant in [the] given case’, and are not necessary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6367187. Public record. Not legal advice.