Riverfront Development Group, LLC v. City of Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Board
109 A.3d 358
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Riverfront Development sought variances and special exceptions to build two two-unit apartment buildings (four units total) on a 38x79 ft lot in Harrisburg’s RLB zone, including partial setback waivers and off-site parking via a one-year lease.
- Harrisburg Planning Commission recommended approval conditioned on architectural and council approvals; Board’s public notice omitted mention of variances, and Applicant was given a continuance.
- The Zoning Hearing Board denied the application, concluding the Code allows only one dwelling (interpreted as one building) per lot in RLB and that Applicant needed a use variance for four units; the Board did not reach parking, setback, or design issues.
- Trial court affirmed, deferring to the Board’s interpretation of the Zoning Code and citing Smith.
- Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court: it held the Board improperly read a one-dwelling-per-lot restriction into the Code where none exists and remanded for findings on setback, parking, and design issues because the Board never addressed them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zoning Code limits number of dwellings per lot in RLB | Applicant: Code permits one- or two-family detached dwellings and—absent a numeric per-lot limit—multiple such buildings may be built if dimensional rules met | Board/City: Ordinance should be read to permit only one dwelling/building per lot in RLB; four units would exceed the zone’s intent | Court: Board abused discretion; Code language does not restrict number of dwellings per lot and ambiguity must be resolved for landowner’s benefit; reverse denial |
| Whether Board may impose a use restriction not in the Code | Applicant: Board may not substitute its preferred ordinance; must apply text as written | Board: its interpretation reflects zoning intent to preserve single-/two-family-per-lot neighborhoods | Held: Board exceeded authority by imposing a rule City Council did not enact; must apply ordinance wording |
| Whether special-exception setback relief is deemed approved for Board’s delay | Applicant: Board failed to decide within 45 days, so relief should be deemed approved under MPC §908(9) | Board: It issued a written denial within 10 days, basing denial on use variance; no delay occurred | Held: No deemed approval—the Board rendered a timely decision denying the application on another ground |
| Whether remaining issues (setbacks, parking, design) are ripe for appellate review | Applicant: Board failed to decide these; they should be deemed approved or addressed | Board: Denial of use variance moots ancillary special exceptions/variances | Held: Record lacks findings on these issues; remand to Board required to develop findings for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Huntingdon Borough, 734 A.2d 55 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deference to zoning board interpretations discussed)
- Greth Dev. Group, Inc. v. Lower Heidelberg Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 918 A.2d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (board may not substitute its preferred ordinance for enacted text)
- Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Dorrance Twp., 987 A.2d 1243 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (ancillary relief may be moot if primary relief denied)
- Bene v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Windsor Twp., 550 A.2d 876 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (remand required where record insufficient for appellate review)
- Albert v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of N. Abington Twp., 854 A.2d 401 (Pa.) (ambiguities in ordinances construed in favor of landowner)
- Borough of Fleetwood v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Fleetwood, 649 A.2d 651 (Pa.) (letter of ordinance cannot be disregarded under guise of spirit)