## Facts

- Rolf Larsen owned a single-family residence on Grandview Avenue in Pittsburgh, located on a steep bluff above the Ohio River.
- The zoning district required a 30-foot rear-yard setback.
- After purchase, Larsen built a rear addition that maintained a compliant rear setback (about 32 feet) and included a rear concrete pad.
- Larsen later sought a permit to build a 20-by-20-foot rear deck (about 400 square feet), which would reduce the rear setback to 12 feet.
- The Zoning Board granted a variance, reasoning that without the deck Larsen lacked a level, usable outdoor play area for his young child and would be deprived of reasonable use of the property.
- Neighboring condominium owners objected, asserting adverse impacts including obstruction of views and harm to neighborhood character.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court exceeded its scope of review by reversing the trial court’s affirmance of the Zoning Board’s variance grant.
2. Whether the evidence established “unnecessary hardship,” not self-created and tied to unique physical circumstances, sufficient to justify a variance from the rear-yard setback.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court did not exceed its scope of review because it applied the governing variance standard to the record and identified legal error.
- The Zoning Board erred as a matter of law, and the trial court abused its discretion, in concluding that the requested deck was supported by unnecessary hardship.
- The variance was denied.

## Legal Principles

- A variance requires proof of unnecessary hardship arising from unique physical circumstances of the property that prevent development in conformity with the ordinance.
- Hardship must be property-based; personal needs or convenience (e.g., a preferred play area) do not satisfy the unnecessary-hardship requirement.
- A self-created hardship—resulting from the owner’s voluntary development decisions—cannot support a variance.
- Conditions common to surrounding properties (such as a shared steep slope) generally are not “unique physical circumstances” justifying variance relief.
- Variances must be consistent with the public interest and may not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

## Conclusion

The court held that a large rear deck encroaching into the required setback could not be justified by a landowner’s personal desire for a more convenient outdoor play space, particularly where the claimed hardship was not unique to the property and was largely created by the owner’s prior expansion choices.


Larsen v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 543 Pa. 415, 672 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1996)