Appeal of: J. and W. Huttner From the Decision of: The Northampton Twp. ZHB In Re: The Application of Rare Ventures, LLC ~ Appeal of: Rare Ventures, LLC.
52 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Rare Ventures (Appellant) sought variances to subdivide a 9.98-acre CR‑zoned parcel into four lots, requesting reductions in minimum lot area, lot width at the building setback, and flag‑lot stem width.
- The property is pie/cone‑shaped, narrower at Worthington Mill Road frontage (≈370 ft) and contains woods, a stream, and steep slopes concentrated in the rear.
- Appellant’s engineer (Heath Dumack) testified the proposed layout minimizes disturbance to woodlands, steep slopes, and the stream and represented the minimum relief needed; he also acknowledged alternative compliant designs were possible but would more greatly disturb environmental features.
- The Northampton Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) granted the variances, finding unnecessary hardship from the lot shape/constraints, that Appellant did not create the hardship, and that the variances were minimal and protective of environmental resources. The Township supported the application.
- Neighbors appealed; the Bucks County trial court reversed the ZHB, concluding Appellant was not entitled as a matter of law to a four‑lot subdivision and had not shown the required unnecessary hardship. Appellant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court: the record lacked competent evidence of economic or financial hardship, alternative ordinance constraints, costs of compliant alternatives, or that the variances were the minimum necessary; mere desire to maximize development/protectiveness of the plan does not establish hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Rare) Argument | Defendant's (Neighbors/Trial Court) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant proved "unnecessary hardship" for dimensional variances | Property’s irregular/cone shape and environmental constraints make strict compliance impracticable; proposed plan is minimal relief | No proof of economic/financial hardship; property can be used conformingly and could be subdivided into four conforming lots or developed differently | Denied — insufficient evidence of unnecessary hardship under relaxed dimensional‑variance standard; applicant’s desire for more lots is not enough |
| Whether Appellant created the hardship sought to be remedied | Hardship arises from unique physical site constraints, not self‑created | Subdivision to create additional lots is a landowner’s attempt to increase profitability and therefore self‑created | Held self‑creation concern sustained: applicant’s plan seeks to create undersized lots and thus the hardship is at least partly self‑inflicted |
| Whether the variances sought were the minimum relief and least modification | The plan minimizes disturbance to woods, slopes, and stream; alternatives would more greatly harm resources | No competent evidence comparing costs/regulatory limits of alternatives or showing the proposed variances are the minimal necessary | Denied — record lacks evidence that variances are the minimum relief; engineer’s opinions were insufficiently supported |
| Whether grant would alter neighborhood character or harm public welfare | Design preserves environmental features and is consistent with district use | Neighbors expressed concerns about views, runoff, and character; trial court found protection of maximum district use alone insufficient | Held no reversible error in trial court’s conclusion that other criteria for variance were not satisfied; ZHB findings insufficiently supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Demko v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment, 155 A.3d 1163 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (articulates relaxed standard for dimensional variances and factors to assess unnecessary hardship)
- Dunn v. Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board, 143 A.3d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (applicant creating the need for variances by subdividing an otherwise usable lot defeats unnecessary‑hardship claim)
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998) (factors for assessing economic and financial detriment in dimensional‑variance cases)
- Tidd v. Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board, 118 A.3d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (upholding variance where denial would cause substantial loss of usable land and financial hardship; deference to ZHB fact findings)
- Tri‑County Landfill, Inc. v. Pine Township Zoning Hearing Board, 771 A.2d 103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (profit motive alone does not establish hardship)
- Holmes v. Zoning Hearing Board of Kennet Township, 396 A.2d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (variance may be granted where unique physical features justify relief without harm to public welfare)