Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2016

Home

i Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 16 i Citation: Dunn v. Middletown Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 2016 WL 3668007 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016) PENNSYLVANIA (07/11/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a zoning hearing board can grant lot width and density variances without any proof of hardship. The Background/Facts: Revonah Construction Company ("Revonah") owned a 79,954 square foot parcel in an RA-2 Resi- dence Agricultural Zoning District in Middletown Township (the "Township"). On that parcel was an existing vacant, ranch style, single-family detached home. Revonah sought to demolish the ' vacant home and subdivide the parcel into three lots on which it would construct two-story, "high-end," single-family homes. In order to do so, Revonah needed lot width variances of nearly 20 feet for two of the proposed lots, as well as a density variance to allow a density of 1.45 dwelling units per acre rather than the required maximum 1.2 dwelling units per acre. Revonah applied to the Township's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB"),,seeking the three variances from the zoning ordinance. The ZHB granted the variance from the maximum density requirement on the ground that it conflicted with the minimurn lot area requirement. More particularly, the ZHB determined that the zoning ordinance's density limit of 1.2 dwelling units per acre, in this instance, would require a building lot greater in size than the minimum lot area requirement of 30,000 square feet. Noting that the law requires that conflicts within zoning ordinances be resolved in favor of the property owner, the ZHB concluded that a density variance was "necessary and warranted"here. The ZHB also granted the variance from the lot width require- ment on the ground that Revonah's request involved only a "minor" deviation from one of the dimensional requirements. Theodore M. Dunn and Lori N. Dunn (the "Dunes") owned property adjacent to Revonah's. The Dunns appealed the ZHB's i grant of the variance relief. Among other things,the Dunns argued that the variances were granted in error because Revonah had failed to establish that there was unnecessary hardship as required for a variance. The Dunns noted that the property had been and could continue to be utilized in conformity with the zoning ordinance—with one single-family home on the existing parcel. The trial court affirmed the ZHB's grant of the variances. The Dunns again appealed. DECISION: Reversed. ©2016 Thomson Reuters 3 1 i i, r i is j i