J. Roberts and M. Roberts v. Luzerne County ZHB
J. Roberts and M. Roberts v. Luzerne County ZHB - 1319 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Verizon sought a special exception and multiple dimensional variances to construct a 95–96 foot monopole and accessory equipment on a leased portion of a 200' x 150' B‑3 zoned lot owned by Courtdale Volunteer Hose Company.
- Requested variances included reductions to required front, rear and side setbacks, a reduced 100' residential setback for the tower foundation, a reduced accessory-structure rear setback, and an 8‑foot security fence.
- The Luzerne County Zoning Hearing Board granted the special exception and “all the variances” but issued a very brief opinion that largely recited parties, property dimensions, and boilerplate variance criteria.
- Objectors (John and Margaret Roberts) appealed, arguing Verizon either did not request or did not prove entitlement to the side‑yard/100‑ft residential setback variance and that the Board’s findings were inadequate to show the variance criteria (especially unnecessary hardship) were satisfied.
- The trial court affirmed, relying in part on Verizon’s FCC license obligations, coverage gaps, and local topography; this Court limited review to whether the Board abused its discretion or erred as the trial court took no new evidence.
- The Commonwealth Court found the Board’s opinion lacked the necessary fact findings and legal reasoning (and failed to address the side‑yard/100‑ft setback issue expressly) and vacated and remanded to obtain proper findings and conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Zoning Board made adequate findings to permit appellate review | Roberts: Board opinion is conclusory and fails to find facts showing variance criteria are met | Board/Verizon: Hearing record and trial court reasoning show coverage, topography, and need justify relief | Held: Board’s opinion insufficient; remand for specific findings and conclusions |
| Whether Verizon met the variance standard (unnecessary hardship and related factors) | Roberts: Verizon did not show unique property‑attendant hardship; evidence of public need is not enough | Verizon: Dimensional variance standard is relaxed (Hertzberg); topography and coverage gap support relief | Held: Court declined to decide merits because Board failed to make findings; trial court’s focus on FCC obligations/topography does not substitute for property‑specific hardship findings |
| Whether Verizon requested and obtained relief from the 100‑foot residential setback (Section 8.04(B)(15)) for side yards | Roberts: Verizon did not seek variance for side‑yard 100‑ft setback, so relief improper | Verizon: Application materials and maps requested relief from the 100‑ft requirement (98' proposed) and hearing addressed setback | Held: Board failed to specifically address or make findings on the Section 8.04(B)(15) side‑yard setback variance; remand required |
| Whether special exception criteria were satisfied given setback conflicts | Roberts: Verizon cannot satisfy special-exception objective requirements because base/foundation must be >100' from residential property line | Verizon: Special exception permitted if objective criteria and any necessary variances are granted | Held: Court did not reach special‑exception merits; resolution depends on outcome of remand on variances |
Key Cases Cited
- Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board, 873 A.2d 807 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (zoning board must make essential findings and reasoning for meaningful appellate review)
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa.) (reduced burden for unnecessary hardship when seeking a dimensional variance)
- Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa.) (applicant need not show property valueless without variance; board must determine if evidence meets variance criteria)
- Township of East Caln v. Zoning Hearing Board of East Caln Township, 915 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (public need alone does not establish a property‑attendant hardship for variance relief)
- In re Towamencin Township, 42 A.3d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (clarifies East Caln: public benefit may support relief but cannot substitute for property‑specific hardship)