Barnabei v. Chadds Ford Township Zoning Hearing Board
118 A.3d 17
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Drew and Nicole Barnabei purchased Stonebridge Mansion (R‑1 historic overlay) in 2011 and lived there as their primary residence.
- They contracted with Drexelbrook Catering to operate Stonebridge as an events/banquet venue and advertised weddings and large gatherings; the contract gave Drexelbrook exclusive catering and facility-operating rights.
- Township officials notified the Barnabeis that a catered events venue is not a permitted use in the R‑1 district, obtained an injunction blocking a proposed festival, and issued zoning citations for prior events.
- The Barnabeis applied to the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) seeking permission to continue events, arguing the use was permitted or accessory, a continuation of a nonconforming use, or alternatively a variance.
- The ZHB denied relief (not accessory, not a preexisting lawful nonconforming commercial use, no unnecessary hardship for a variance); the trial court affirmed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Barnabei's Argument | Township's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether events use is permitted by right or as an accessory use | Renting short-term event space is incidental to residential use and thus permitted/accessory | Commercial lease/operation by Drexelbrook is not an accessory residential use | Not permitted: lessee’s principal use must be residential; leasing to operate a catering business exceeds owners’ residential rights |
| Whether events use is a lawful nonconforming use | Prior owner (901 Poplar) held similar events, establishing a preexisting lawful use | No evidence events existed before the Ordinance; prior events post‑Ordinance insufficient | Not nonconforming: no objective proof of a lawful commercial use predating the Ordinance |
| Entitlement to a variance by estoppel | Township conduct/communications estop enforcement; equitable relief warranted | Issue not raised below; record lacks factfinding on estoppel | Waived: not raised before ZHB and trial court took no new evidence |
| Whether a variance was warranted (unnecessary hardship) | Economic hardship from zoning prevents reasonable use without variance | No unique physical conditions; property usable as residence or bed-and-breakfast; mere economic loss insufficient | Denied: Barnabeis failed to prove unique physical hardship or that property is valueless for permitted uses |
Key Cases Cited
- Keener v. Rapho Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 79 A.3d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (ordinance distinctions between commercial and noncommercial uses must relate to health, safety, welfare)
- Caln Nether Co., L.P. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Thornbury Twp., 840 A.2d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (whether a use falls within an ordinance category is a question of law)
- Pietropaolo v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Merion Twp., 979 A.2d 969 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (nonconforming use must predate prohibitory ordinance)
- Jones v. North Huntingdon Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 467 A.2d 1206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (burden to prove nonconforming use requires objective, conclusive evidence)
- Coal Gas Recovery, L.P. v. Franklin Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 944 A.2d 832 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standard of review when no new evidence before trial court)
- Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 873 A.2d 807 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (standards for proving unnecessary hardship for variance)
- Williams v. Salem Twp., 500 A.2d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (variances are exceptional and applicant bears heavy burden)