Poole v. ZONING BD. OF ADJUSTMENT OF PHILA.
10 A.3d 381
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- Property at 412-24 Moyer Street is in an L-4 Limited Industrial District within the North Delaware Avenue Special Control District and is bordered by R-10A residential properties.
- Parcels total 11,500 square feet; the site previously housed a scrap metal warehouse and more recently an illegal auto repossession yard.
- Moyer applied on January 23, 2008 for a permit to demolish an existing structure and erect 8 residential structures comprising 14 units with decks and parking; six structures would be four stories, and two would be three stories tall.
- L&I denied the permit on February 17, 2008 for (a) use in L-4, (b) multiple uses on a single lot, (c) lack of required off-street loading spaces, and (d) insufficient rear-yard depth.
- The Board granted a use variance on March 26, 2008, finding the current use inconsistent with the neighborhood, removing blight, and introducing sustainable residential housing.
- Objector Scott appealed, and the trial court affirmed; the Board failed to issue findings for three ancillary variances, prompting remand to address those specific variances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial hardship was shown for the variances | Scott contends hardship was not demonstrated. | Moyer argues unique hardship justifying the use variance based on neighborhood context. | Use variance supported by substantial evidence; remand needed for three additional variances. |
| Whether the variances were the minimum necessary to alleviate hardship | Scott asserts variances are not the minimum relief. | Moyer claims minimum variances minimize impact while achieving relief. | Board provided insufficient factual findings on minimumity for three ancillary variances; remand required. |
| Whether the property could be reasonably used in accordance with L-4 | Scott challenges the feasibility of residential use under current zoning. | Moyer's plan aligns with surrounding residential use while removing blight. | Board's use variance analysis supported by record; but remand to address additional variances remains necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550 (Pa. 1983) (hardship must be substantial and the variance must not injure adjacent uses)
- East Torresdale Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia County, 536 Pa. 322 (Pa. 1994) (Philadelphia variance criteria are specified by §14-1802(1))
- Wilson v. Plumstead Township Zoning Hearing Board, 594 Pa. 416 (Pa. 2007) (Philadelphia ordinance considerations often coterminous with MPC framework)
- North Chestnut Hill Neighbors v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 928 A.2d 418 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (three key requirements: unique hardship, no public detriment, minimum variance)
- Teazers, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 682 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (substantial evidence standard for review of zoning board decisions)
- McGonigle v. Lower Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board, 858 A.2d 663 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition and limits of spot zoning)