Monmalt Partners and Stroschein Pointe Partners v. ZHB of the Municipality of Monroeville v. Municipality of Monroeville and Key Development Partners, LLC
Monmalt Partners and Stroschein Pointe Partners v. ZHB of the Municipality of Monroeville v. Municipality of Monroeville and Key Development Partners, LLC - 1992 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 4, 2017Background
- Property: triangular commercial lot at 4020 William Penn Hwy, Monroeville, formerly a gas station; Key Development Partners (Applicant) has purchase agreement and proposed raze-and-build for retail and a restaurant (permitted C-2 uses).
- Zoning issues: C-2 requires 10-foot front yards and 15-foot side yards and 57 parking spaces; Applicant sought three dimensional variances to (1) reduce parking from 57 to 53, (2) allow portions of 25 parking spaces to encroach into the 10-foot front yard, and (3) allow portions of 9 parking spaces to encroach into the 15-foot side yard.
- Applicant’s proof: engineer testified the lot’s triangular shape, two front yards and no rear yard create unique physical constraints such that strict conformity prevents reasonable development; also testified as to minimum viable building sizes and neighborhood impact.
- Objectors (adjacent landowners) opposed, arguing lack of hardship, reliance on self-serving testimony, and that a 1996 reciprocal easement between owners affected development; they submitted only the easement document and legal argument.
- Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) credited Applicant’s testimony, concluded dimensional-variance (Hertzberg) standards applied, found the hardship was property-based (triangular shape/lack of rear yard), and granted the variances; the trial court affirmed and the Commonwealth Court affirmed the lower courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Applicant produced sufficient evidence of unnecessary hardship for dimensional variances | Applicant: lot’s triangular shape, two front yards and no rear yard create unique physical hardship preventing strict conformity | Objectors: testimony was conclusory/self‑serving, no proof burdened all dimensionally compliant uses or provided economic specifics | Held: Affirmed — ZHB reasonably credited testimony; Hertzberg’s relaxed standard applies to dimensional variances and criteria were satisfied |
| Whether Applicant had to prove the property was valueless or unable to be used for any permitted purpose | Applicant: not required under Hertzberg/Marshall; need only show property-based hardship and economic factors may be considered | Objectors: argued prior precedents require showing burden on all compliant uses and more concrete economic proof | Held: Court followed Marshall/Hertzberg — applicant need not show total valuelessness or impossibility of any permitted use; property-based constraints sufficed |
| Whether the ZHB erred by considering prior variances or relying on past approvals | Objectors: prior variances are irrelevant; each application must stand on its facts (Omnivest/Mobil Oil) | Applicant: referenced prior approvals but ZHB relied on current testimony and independent findings | Held: ZHB did not base decision on prior variances; reliance on current evidence was proper; Omnivest/Mobil Oil not controlling here |
| Whether the ZHB should have addressed the private easement or required an amended site/plot plan showing the easement | Objectors: zoning application/ordinance required plot plan showing easements; easement affects development and should have been considered | ZHB/Applicant: easement is a title/right issue not for zoning board; Objectors waived failure-to-submit-plan argument by not raising it below | Held: Easement is a title matter for courts, not for ZHB; waiver doctrine applies to plot-plan claim; no error in ZHB refusing to decide easement issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998) (announced relaxed unnecessary‑hardship standard for dimensional variances; economic detriment may be considered)
- Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014) (appellate courts must defer to zoning board findings; applicant need not show property is valueless without variance)
- Tri-County Landfill, Inc. v. Pine Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 83 A.3d 488 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (reiterates that Hertzberg eased but did not eliminate hardship requirement; hardship must be property‑based)
- One Meridian Partners, LLP v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 867 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (Hertzberg does not relieve applicant of burden to present evidence for ordinance conditions)
- Omnivest v. Stewartstown Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 641 A.2d 648 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (each variance application must be proved on its own facts; prior variances are generally inadmissible)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Borough of Dauphin, 291 A.2d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972) (past grants of similar variances do not by themselves satisfy a new applicant’s burden)