In this case a property owner sought a variance to allow more retail space on the ground floor of his building than 1,500 square feet permitted by the zoning ordinance. 

The ZHB denied the variance request, treating it as a use variance.  The property owner appealed, claiming the ZHB erred by classifying the variance request as a use variance instead of a dimensional variance.  The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding that regardless of whether the variance was classified as a use or a dimensional variance, the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1867CD17_10-11-18.pdf?cb=1