In Yeager v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the City of Allentown, 779 A.2d 595, 598 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), an applicant wanted to operate a Land Rover auto facility. The owner admitted that it could satisfy the setback requirements if it decreased the display space at the front of the building or if it reduced the size of the building, but that Land Rover would not approve such designs. The Court concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the variances, because the hardship was not created by the topographical conditions but rather based on the applicant's "personal desire to sell vehicles for Land Rover." Id. The Court noted that the property was suited to the general purpose for which it was zoned and used--a car dealership, and that the ordinance did not burden that use. Rather, the applicant had proven only that the ordinance burdened his personal desire to sell vehicles for Land Rover. The Court stated that "a substantial burden must attend all dimensionally compliant uses of the property, not just the particular use the owner chooses and that a variance, whether labeled dimensional or use, is appropriate 'only where the property, not the person, is subject to hardship.'" In Yeager, a car dealership sought a dimensional variance for construction of an additional facility on its property in order to sell Land Rovers. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision that reversed the grant of a dimensional variance, stating that the property owner was not entitled to the variance, since the property was "well suited to the purpose for which it was zoned and actually used." Id. The Court found that the only burden placed upon the property owner by the ordinance was upon his desire to sell Land Rovers.