T.M. Dunn and L.N. Dunn v. Middletown Twp. ZHB
143 A.3d 494
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Applicant (Revonah Construction) owns a 79,954 sq. ft. parcel in Middletown Twp. RA-2; it proposed demolishing an existing ranch house and subdividing into three lots (two buildable homes + one to be merged with adjacent parcel).
- Proposed Lots 1 and 2: ~30,008 and ~30,152 sq. ft. each (meet minimum lot area) but have lot widths of ~106.7 and ~107.2 ft vs. 125 ft required (≈15% deficiency).
- Proposed development produces a density of 1.45 dwelling units/acre, exceeding the RA-2 maximum of 1.2 du/acre; Applicant sought three variances (two lot width, one density).
- Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) granted all three variances, finding the deviations were minor (de minimis for width), the proposal would preserve neighborhood character and mitigate stormwater, and that a density requirement conflict with minimum lot area justified relief.
- Objectors appealed; the trial court affirmed without additional evidence. On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the grant of all three variances (majority), holding the ZHB erred as to density and lot-width relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dunn/Objectors) | Defendant's Argument (Applicant/ZHB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Applicant proved unnecessary hardship for lot-width variances | No — property can be used as-is for one conforming house; economic motive is insufficient | Yes — deviations are minor; plan preserves character and benefits neighborhood; engineer testimony on buffers/stormwater | Held: Denied. No hardship shown; variances not justified where developer creates the nonconformity to increase profit. |
| 2. Whether lot-width variances were de minimis (minor) | No — ~15% deviation is substantial and creates two nonconforming lots; Leonard and precedent reject treating such deviations as de minimis | Yes — de minimis inquiry is discretionary and fact-specific; board credited neighborhood benefits and public-policy nonharm | Held: Denied. 15% deviations not de minimis as matter of law here; ZHB abused discretion in treating them as minor. |
| 3. Whether ZHB properly granted variance from maximum density (1.2 du/acre) | No — Applicant failed to show hardship; can use property for one compliant dwelling; density cap and lot-area minimum are not in conflict | Yes — enforcement of density would require a lot area larger than the ordinance’s minimum, creating an internal conflict; MPC §603.1 favors property owner on ambiguity | Held: Denied. No actual conflict between minimum lot area and maximum density; ZHB erred in treating the provisions as conflicting and granting variance absent hardship. |
| 4. Proper interpretive approach when ordinance provisions appear tensioned | Applicant/ZHB: interpret ambiguity in favor of owner (MPC §603.1) | Objectors: plain-language reading; resolve by substantive validity challenge if needed | Held: The court applied plain language; no ambiguity found, so MPC §603.1 did not apply; relief required hardship proof or validity challenge which was not raised. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998) (adopted a relaxed, factor-based standard for unnecessary hardship in dimensional variance cases but retained the need to prove hardship)
- Tri-County Landfill, Inc. v. Pine Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 83 A.3d 488 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (restated variance criteria and emphasized that Hertzberg did not eliminate the hardship requirement)
- Leonard v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Bethlehem, 583 A.2d 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (refused to treat ~6% subdivision deviation as de minimis where subdivision creates nonconformity; de minimis doctrine is narrow)
- Appletree Land Dev. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of York Twp., 834 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (explained narrow scope of de minimis variance: minor dimensional deviation and no need for rigid compliance to protect public policy)