In Re: Appeal of Chestnut Hill Community Association
155 A.3d 658
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Property: 210 Evergreen Ave., Philadelphia — semi-detached single-family home in RSA-3 zoning; owner sought to construct a 12'×19'4" open-air front-yard parking space with a 12' curb cut.
- Department of Licenses and Inspections denied permit because Zoning Code prohibits accessory surface parking in required front, side, and rear yards absent exceptions.
- Applicant appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA); ZBA granted the variance after a public hearing despite opposition from the neighborhood association, Planning Commission, Chestnut Hill Historical Society, and some adjacent neighbors.
- Appellants (neighborhood association and neighbors) appealed to the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court; the trial court affirmed the ZBA without taking additional evidence.
- On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the ZBA’s grant was supported by substantial evidence that denial would cause an "unnecessary hardship" unique to the property, as required by the Zoning Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellants) | Defendant's Argument (Owners/Applicant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of variance would cause an unnecessary hardship unique to the property | ZBA failed to identify unique physical conditions; hardship must be peculiar to the lot | Property configuration (setback, location of structure, narrow side yard) makes rear access impossible, creating hardship | Reversed: no substantial evidence that hardship was unique to property; neighborhood-wide parking limits are not unique hardship |
| Whether ZBA misapplied zoning exceptions allowing rear-yard parking | Appellants: ZBA ignored that rear-yard/access exceptions control and that owners lacked a right to rear access | Owners: rear access infeasible on this lot, so front-yard parking is necessary | ZBA erred by assuming owners had a right to rear parking; applicable exceptions did not apply, undermining hardship finding |
| Whether precedent of other curb cuts/driveways on block justified variance | Appellants: prior curb cuts do not justify new variance; each parcel judged on its merits | Owners: presence of other curb cuts and neighborhood pattern supports proposal | Court held prior variances or existing curb cuts do not legally justify a variance for this lot |
| Whether ZBA made required findings and supported them with substantial evidence | Appellants: ZBA failed to make required written findings supported by substantial evidence as mandated by Zoning Code | Owners: ZBA made factual findings and concluded criteria were met | Court held ZBA did not satisfy statutory requirement because hardship finding lacked substantial evidentiary support |
Key Cases Cited
- Singer v. Philadelphia Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 29 A.3d 144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (variance burden: denial must cause unnecessary hardship; must consider Code factors)
- Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014) (hardship must be unique to the property; district-wide impact insufficient)
- Valley View Civic Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1983) (applicant must prove unnecessary hardship and public interest compatibility)
- Larsen v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 672 A.2d 286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (zoning board must consider each ordinance requirement before granting variance)
- Pincus v. Power, 101 A.2d 914 (Pa. 1954) (variances are to be sparingly exercised; only for substantial and compelling hardships)