Lake v. Warrington Township ZHB v. Warrington Township and Pennex Aluminum Company LLC
896 C.D. 2017
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jan 11, 2018Background
- Pennex Aluminum (Headquarters in Wellsville Borough) bought an adjoining 2.03-acre lot in Warrington Township (zoned Village Commercial) to combine lots, demolish a house, and use the site for tractor-trailer parking and a second access drive.
- Township zoning (§410(c)) prohibits any access drive within 50 feet of a street intersection and within 3 feet of a property line; Pennex sought dimensional variances to align the new access drive with an existing T-intersection (Carroll & Community Sts.).
- Pennex applied to the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) for dimensional variances (and a special exception if required); expert testimony emphasized safety and improved turning movements if the drive were aligned.
- Neighbors (the Lakes) opposed, arguing hardship was self-created by Pennex’s purchase and rezoning and that variances would worsen noise, safety, and residential impacts.
- ZHB granted the dimensional variances and related relief; the trial court affirmed; the Lakes appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ZHB should have applied use-variance rather than dimensional-variance standards | Lakes: variance effectively authorizes an industrial use expansion and thus requires the stricter use-variance standard | Pennex: requested dimensional variances to adjust setback/alignment for a permitted accessory use; request lies within zoning scheme | Court: Pennex sought dimensional variances for a permitted use; ZHB correctly applied dimensional-variance criteria (Hertzberg standard) |
| Whether Pennex met variance criteria (unnecessary hardship, not self-created, public interest, minimum relief) | Lakes: hardship is self-created by purchase and rezoning; variances will harm safety, quality of life, and adjacent property use | Pennex: unique physical condition (T-intersection location) makes strict compliance unsafe; aligning drive improves safety and is minimum relief; hardship not self-created | Court: substantial evidence supports ZHB findings; unique physical circumstances and public-safety rationale satisfy variance criteria; variances not contrary to public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldstein v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Twp. of Lower Merion, 19 A.3d 565 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (variance requires unnecessary hardship and not being contrary to public interest)
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998) (distinguishes dimensional vs use variances; relaxed hardship factors for dimensional variances)
- Tidd v. Lower Saucon Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 118 A.3d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (same criteria apply to use and dimensional variances; applicants must address ordinance conditions)
- Marshall v. City of Phila., 97 A.3d 323 (Pa.) (ZHB determines whether evidence satisfies variance criteria)
- Hafner v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Allen Twp., 974 A.2d 1204 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deference to ZHB interpretation of its ordinance)
- JoJo Oil Co., Inc. v. Dingman Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 77 A.3d 679 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (substantial-evidence standard on review of ZHB decisions)
- Tink-Wig Mountain Lake Forest Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Lackawaxen Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 986 A.2d 935 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (ordinances construed to afford broadest use and enjoyment of land)