holding that a zoning board of adjustment improperly denied a variance because enormous expenditures were necessary to restore the property to compliance, stating "it would be most inequitable and unjust to re fuse to grant a variance in this exceptional case”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a zoning board of adjustment improperly denied a variance because enormous expenditures were necessary to restore the property to compliance, stating "it would be most inequitable and unjust to re fuse to grant a variance in this exceptional case”
- variance by estoppel based upon twenty-three years of municipal inaction combined with evidence that Board of Adjustment knew for thirteen years of illegal use since, in denying previous owners request for variance for a seven-unit dwelling the Board knew of existing illegal use as five-unit dwelling
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Pae v. Hilltown Township Zoning Hearing Board, 35 Pa. Commw. 229 (1978)
The holding of Sheedy, however, has been confined to its facts by Hasage v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Ad
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ignelzi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 61 Pa. Commw. 101 (1981)
Sheedy is clearly inapposite.
Distinguished by Glazer v. Zoning Hearing Board, 55 Pa. Commw. 234 (1980)
Sheedy is inapposite to the instant case because the municipality knowingly permitted the illegal use for many years, and appellants were subsequent purchasers innocent of the original violation.
Distinguished by Hasage v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 415 Pa. 31 (1964)
Finally, the case of Sheedy v. Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 409 Pa. 655, 187 A. 2d 907 (1963), upon which the lower court relied is factually distinguishable and not controlling.
The opinion
*660 Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
■ The record here comes to us with 40 pages of colloquy and 7 pages of testimony. Since the unsworn statements of counsel differ materially, I find myself without the factual basis necessary to arrive at a proper legal determination of this controversy. I would, therefore, remand this case to the zoning board so that the board might compile the necessary record and tahe appropriate action based on that record.