Tidd v. Lower Saucon Township Zoning Hearing Board
2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 225
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Green Gables (applicant) owns a vacant ~24.6-acre parcel in a Rural Agricultural district and seeks to operate Lucky Shoe Farms (horse boarding, training, lessons), a permitted use.
- Zoning ordinance requires all areas used to corral or pasture horses to be at least 100 feet from lot lines; applicant applied for a dimensional variance for several pastures that would be closer (54–80–69 ft).
- Property is encumbered by a continuous ~40-foot tree line around the perimeter, a tree line bisecting the parcel, and an extensive utility easement, which the applicant says substantially limits usable pasture area.
- Applicant offered testimony that strict compliance would eliminate ~6.5 acres (~25%) of usable pasture, would force extensive tree removal or expensive perimeter-fence work, and agreed to conditions limiting tree removal and horses to 36.
- Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) granted the dimensional variance 3–1 with conditions; trial court affirmed. Objector appealed to this court challenging the ZHB’s findings and the showing of unnecessary hardship.
Issues
| Issue | Objector's Argument | Applicant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applicant proved "unnecessary hardship" for a dimensional variance | Trees are not shown to be unique; pasture layout could conform to the 100-ft buffer and the loss is only the buffer’s intended effect, not hardship | Mature tree lines and an easement uniquely reduce usable land; denial would cause economic detriment and require costly/tree‑removal work | Affirmed: ZHB findings supported; under Hertzberg relaxed standard economic detriment and property characteristics suffice to show hardship |
| Whether ZHB findings that applicant would lose ~6 acres (~25%) and suffer financial hardship are supported by substantial evidence | Buffer restriction only limits pastures, not other uses; acreage isn’t "lost" for all uses | Unrebutted testimony established the expected loss of pasture usable area and cost to recover it via tree removal or perimeter fences | Affirmed: Dellmyer’s uncontradicted testimony supports those findings; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Whether the variance sought was the minimum relief and harmonious with neighborhood | Objector: applicant’s preferred layout, not a necessity; relief promotes desired business model rather than necessary use | Applicant: plan minimizes tree removal and is the most efficient use; agreed conditions limit impacts | Held: ZHB reasonably found relief was minimal and conditioned to limit tree removal and impacts |
| Standard of review — whether appellate court should substitute its judgment for ZHB | Objector urges stricter scrutiny of hardship showing | Applicant & ZHB rely on Marshall and Hertzberg to emphasize deference to ZHB fact‑finding | Held: Substantial deference required; appellate court may not substitute its judgment where findings are supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014) (zoning board factual findings — especially on hardship — warrant substantial deference; appellate courts should not substitute their judgment)
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998) (relaxed standard for establishing unnecessary hardship for dimensional variances; economic detriment and surrounding characteristics may be considered)
- Tri-County Landfill, Inc. v. Pine Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 83 A.3d 488 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (restatement of variance criteria and standard of review)
- Holmes v. Zoning Hearing Board of Kennett Township, 396 A.2d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (upholding variance to preserve mature trees where alternative site required destruction of significant trees)
- Noah’s Ark Christian Child Care Ctr., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of W. Mifflin, 880 A.2d 596 (Pa. 2005) (caution against appellate courts substituting judgment for zoning boards)
- Yeager v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Allentown, 779 A.2d 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (economic burden may be considered but desire to maximize profitability is insufficient for hardship)
- Singer v. Phila. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 29 A.3d 144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (applicant must show more than mere desire to develop as chosen; substantial burden must attend all compliant uses)