Opinion by
Aрpellant, Enokay, Inc., is the owner of a parcel of realty locatеd in Lower Merion Township. Part of the property is zoned R-7 Residence District, and the rest of the parcel (over one-half) is zoned R-3 Residence District. Although the applicable zoning ordinance permits apartment buildings to be erected in R-7 districts, construction in R-3 areas is restricted to single-family dwellings.
Appellant apрlied to the proper township officers for a permit to erect an apartment building on his parcel. The application was refused, and appellant was notified by the department that it Avould be necessary first to obtain both a variance from the township zoning ordinance to extend the use regulations of the R-7 Residence District over the entire property and a special exception under the ordinance for the construction of a storage gаrage.
Subsequently, appellant applied to appellee, Lower Merion Township Board of Adjustment (Board) for a variance from the ordinance to extend the use regulations of the R-7 district over the property locatеd in the R-3 area, and also for a special exception to permit сonstruction of the storage facility. Board denied the application fоr the variance on the ground that the applicant had failed to provе unnecessary hardship. Board also refused the request for the special еxception.
Thereupon, appellant appealed to the Cоurt of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. No further testimony was taken and the case was argued before the *595 court en banc. The court ruled that appellant was entitled to a building permit as a matter of right. One week, thereafter, the mattеr was ordered for reargument before the court en banc, and after reаrgument, the original opinion and order were vacated per curiam, the decision of the Board affirmed and the appeal dismissed. This appeal fоllowed.
Recently, in
Upper Providence Township Appeal,
The present case fits within this rule. Following the refusal of the township officers to grant the desired building permit, appellant appealed to Board for a variance and exception from the township zoning ordinance. The evidence taken before Board clearly indicates that these were the only issues raised. On appeаl to the court of common pleas, however, appellant switched its linе of attack and argued that it is entitled, to a building permit as a matter of right since a reasonable interpretation of the zoning ordinance would be to allow extension of the less restrictive R-7 use into the R-3 district, and thereby permit construction of the apartment house. Since, 'in our opinion, this part of the case was not properly before the court below, we will not consider it here on appeal.
.■ Regarding the refusal of the variance — the sole issue beforе us — , we fail to see where Board’s action will result in unnecessary hardship or in a hаrdship unique or peculiar to appellants’ property as distinguished from one arising from the impact of the zoning
*596
regulations on the entire district.
Richman v. Zoning Board of Adjustment,
Accordingly, since appellеe Board neither abused its discretion nor committed an error of law, the ordеr of the court below affirming the refusal of a variance and exception is hereby affirmed.
Order affirmed.