Detwiler v. Zoning Hearing Board
1991 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 442, 596 A.2d 1156, 141 Pa. Commw. 597 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a zoning ordinance's dimensional requirements, such as setbacks, prevent the construction of a residence on a lot zoned for residential use, an unnecessary hardship exists that justifies a variance, even if a secondary and economically impractical use like agriculture is technically permitted.
Facts:
- Donald and Mary Miller own a 2.8-acre, irregularly shaped lot in a residential district (R-1A) in Lower Salford Township.
- The Township's zoning ordinance requires single-family homes to have 75-foot front and rear yard setbacks and 40-foot side yard setbacks.
- The combination of the lot's shape and the setback requirements creates a building envelope so small that it is practically impossible to construct a residence on the property.
- The Millers' lot has been in Mr. Miller's family for some time, passing down from his uncle.
- A local farmer periodically cuts hay from the Millers' lot.
- Philip and Babette Detwiler own a home on the National Register of Historic Places, located directly across the street from the Millers' lot.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald and Mary Miller filed an application with the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Salford Township (Board) for a variance from the rear yard setback requirement.
- Philip and Babette Detwiler appeared before the Board to oppose the Millers' application.
- The Board granted the Millers' request for a variance.
- The Detwilers, as appellants, appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court).
- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Board's decision without taking additional evidence.
- The Detwilers, as appellants, then appealed the trial court's order to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a zoning ordinance impose an unnecessary hardship justifying a dimensional variance when its setback requirements render a residentially-zoned lot unusable for the construction of a home, even though a limited agricultural use is permitted and currently practiced on the lot?
Opinions:
Majority - Senior Judge Barbieri
Yes, a zoning ordinance imposes an unnecessary hardship under these circumstances. To deny a variance would render the lot practically valueless and subject it to 'terminal sterility,' which constitutes an unnecessary hardship. The court reasoned that while agriculture is a permitted use, it is not a reasonable use for this specific lot given its size, characteristics, and location in a predominantly residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the hardship was not self-inflicted; it arose from the unique configuration of the lot, which has existed since its creation, not from any action by the Millers. The court also found no adverse impact on the public welfare, dismissing the Detwilers' objections as personal aesthetic preferences rather than legitimate public concerns, especially since the variance requested was for the rear yard, away from the Detwilers' property.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'unnecessary hardship' standard for dimensional variances in Pennsylvania zoning law. The decision establishes that the inability to use a residential lot for its primary intended purpose (building a home) is a sufficient hardship, even if a secondary, impractical use is technically allowed. It distinguishes between a mere inconvenience and a hardship that effectively renders the land unusable and valueless. This precedent strengthens the position of landowners whose property is uniquely burdened by general zoning rules and sets a high bar for neighbors attempting to block a variance based on personal or aesthetic objections rather than demonstrable harm to public welfare.
Unlock the full brief for Detwiler v. Zoning Hearing Board