The recent case of Goldstein v. The Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Lower Merion filed April 21 by the Commonwealth Court emphatically illustrates the importance of not disregarding the mandates of local ordinances when constructing additions or new structures on one’s real estate. As we shall soon see, neither the long-standing nature of a nonconformity, the expense of compliance, nor the acquiescence of one’s immediate neighbors will afford relief to the landowner when a hardship is not directly tied to a pre-existing unique physical condition on one’s property.
According to the court’s opinion, William and Frances Goldstein constructed a pool house on their property in 1982. The pool house violated the Lower Merion Township Ordinance regulating aggregate side set back requirements by 2.51 feet. Remarkably, the township never cited the landowners for the violation. Twenty-four years later, in 2006, the landowners began construction of an addition to the west side of their home that violated the aggregate side setback by 11.5 feet. The permit for the addition was contingent upon resolving the status of the non-conforming pool house.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
