reasoning that "[a]lthough we might agree that the Property is not the best site for residential development and that it would be more profitable for [the landowner] to develop the Property commercially, that does not entitle [the landowner] to a validity variance"
How later courts described this case
- reasoning that "[a]lthough we might agree that the Property is not the best site for residential development and that it would be more profitable for [the landowner] to develop the Property commercially, that does not entitle [the landowner] to a validity variance"
- denial of validity variance to build commercial office buildings in a residential zoning district was proper where evidence consisted of conclusory opinions that the property was unsuitable for residential use
- “in a ‘validity variance’ case, the key is the actuality of confiscation, and confiscation is the unnecessary hardship[]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION BY
President Judge COLINS.
I must dissent. The fact that there has not been a residential home built along Linglestown Road in the property’s vicinity for more than 25 years establishes that it is totally impracticable to develop the property for single-family residential use on this heavily-traveled state highway.
I would reverse and grant the validity variance.