IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Paula Canivan, :

Appellant :

: No. 98 C.D. 2020

v. :

: Submitted: October 29, 2021 

Honesdale Borough Zoning Board :

and Honesdale Community Church, :

Inc. :

BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge 

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge 

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge 

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: November 15, 2022

Paula Canivan (Canivan) appeals from the December 10, 2019 order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County (trial court), which affirmed the 

December 7, 2018 decision of the Honesdale Borough Zoning Hearing Board 

(ZHB)1 granting The Honesdale Community Church, Inc.’s (Church) request for 

dimensional variances from the applicable maximum lot coverage, setback 

requirements, and planting strip width requirement of the Honesdale Borough 

Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance),

2

thereby allowing the Church to expand the parking 

lot on its property. After thorough consideration, we affirm. 

1 This Court precluded the ZHB, which is listed as an appellee in the caption, from filing a 

brief in this matter based on its failure to comply with this Court’s June 3, 2021 order directing it 

to file a brief in 14 days. 

2 Borough of Honesdale, Pa., Zoning Ordinance, as amended, §§ 210-1 – 210-44 (2000), 

available at https://ecode360.com/12991884 (last visited November 10, 2022). 
2

Background

The Church owns property located at 206 12th Street (Property), at the 

corner of 12th and Church Streets in Honesdale Borough (Borough). Reproduced 

Record (R.R.) at 13a, 16a, 18a; ZHB Decision, Finding of Fact (F.F.) ¶ 1. The 

Property is located in the Borough’s R-5 Residential/Professional Zoning District 

(R-5 District) and is improved with a church building and a parking lot. R.R. at 13a, 

16a; ZHB Decision at 1. Churches and places of worship are allowed as special 

exception uses in the R-5 District. Ordinance § 210-10(D). Notably, the Church 

obtained a variance from the ZHB in 1998 for its current 14-space, on-site parking 

lot. R.R. at 13a, 18a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 2 & Applicant Exhibit A-6 (1998 

variance).

3

 

On July 16, 2018, the Church submitted an application to the ZHB 

requesting three dimensional variances so it could expand its on-site parking lot from 

14 to 24 spaces. R.R. at 12a-16a. Specifically, the Church requested the following 

variances from the Ordinance: (1) to extend the existing parking area to within 1

foot of the easterly boundary, where the Ordinance requires side and rear lot setbacks 

of 10 feet; (2) to lessen the planting strip along the easterly and southerly boundaries 

from the required 20 feet to 1 foot and 6 feet, respectively; and (3) to increase the 

maximum lot coverage from the current 52% to 56%, where the Ordinance provides 

a maximum lot coverage of 35%. Id. at 12a, 14a; see Ordinance §§ 210-10(F), 210-

19(I). The narrative submitted in support of the Church’s application explains, in 

pertinent part:

3 Applicant Exhibit A-6 appears to be missing from the list of exhibits in the ZHB’s 

decision. See ZHB Decision at 3-4. However, the ZHB admitted this exhibit into the record and 

specifically mentioned the exhibit in its Findings of Fact. See ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 2; R.R. at 24a, 

40a. 
3

Since 1998[,] significant changes have occurred 

to the [] Church, the Borough[,] and the neighborhood. 

The [] Church’s congregation has grown, attendance at 

services has increased, and the nature of modern life with 

its emphasis on the automobile has increased the need for 

parking. In addition, the Borough has had its traffic 

patterns significantly altered with the result that Main 

Street is one way south while Church Street is one way 

north. Even more significant is the construction of the 

General Richard J. Tallman [(Tallman)] bridge 

crossing the Lackawaxen River at Church and [12th] 

Streets. 

These changes had an obvious impact on 

available on-street parking for church activities. There 

is no on-street parking on the easterly side of Church 

Street north of Central Park, and very few spots on the 

westerly side of Church Street. In addition, the 

construction of the [Tallman] bridge has lessened the 

availability of the on-street parking on [12th] Street[,]

which existed before it was constructed. 

Existing off-street parking (14 spots) is provided on 

the [] [P]roperty to the south of the church building 

because of the variance granted by the [ZHB] in 1998. 

However, due to the change in circumstances outlined 

above[,] the [] Church finds it necessary to increase the 

size of this parking lot by extending its boundaries in a 

manner nearly identical to those permitted by the existing 

variance. This will add [10] parking spaces[,] making the 

off-street parking capacity of the lot 24 spaces. 

R.R. at 13a (emphasis added).

The ZHB held a hearing on the Church’s application on October 25, 

2018. Keith Larson, the Church’s President, testified first in support of the Church’s 

application. He explained that the Church previously submitted a variance 

application to the ZHB in which it sought to add 14 more parking spaces, for a total 

of 28 spaces, but the plan was withdrawn after Canivan, one of the Church’s 
4

neighbors, objected. R.R. at 46a-47a, 51a-52a, 54a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 3 & 

Applicant Exhibit A-8 (prior plan for parking expansion). Larson confirmed that the 

Church’s current parking lot expansion plan4is drastically different than the 

withdrawn plan due to the Church’s attempt to accommodate Canivan’s concerns by 

eliminating the four parking spots along the border with Canivan’s property. R.R. 

at 47a, 128a-30a, 151a. Larson then testified that the Church needs the “additional 

off-street parking because the current parking is insufficient for the number of people 

that show up on a Sunday morning.” R.R. at 48a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 5. In support 

of this contention, Larson stated that he personally counted the number of cars that 

showed up for the Church’s Sunday morning service each week from the last Sunday 

in June 2018 through the week prior to the ZHB hearing. R.R. at 48a-49a, 57a. The 

Church submitted into evidence a document outlining the number of cars Larson

counted each week, ranging from 15 to 27 in total, which exceeds the Church’s 

current parking lot that has only 14 spaces. Id. at 49a-50a; ZHB Decision, Applicant 

Exhibit A-9 (attendance for 2018 at Church). Larson explained that he only counted 

cars parked outside of the Church’s parking lot if he was able to verify that the 

individuals driving the cars attended the service. Id. 

In response to a question about whether the Church was the only user

of the parking lot, Larson stated that the Church permits a nearby pharmacy to also 

use the parking lot during business hours on weekdays. R.R. at 50a; ZHB Decision, 

F.F. ¶ 6. Larson explained that the pharmacy gives the Church “a free will” quarterly 

donation of $180 in exchange for pharmacy employees’ use of the lot. R.R. at 50a, 

63a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 6. When asked what would happen if the pharmacy 

stopped making the quarterly donation, Larson stated the Church would still allow 

4 The current parking lot expansion plan and variance application were admitted into the 

record as Applicant’s Exhibit A-10. 
5

the pharmacy’s employees to use the lot. R.R. at 50a-51a. Larson indicated that 

there was no contract between the Church and the pharmacy with respect to the 

pharmacy’s donation and use of the lot. He also noted that it was up to the pharmacy 

to determine whether it would increase the donation due to any increase in the 

number of parking spaces. R.R. at 52a-53a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 6. 

Larson noted on cross-examination that the Church’s parishioners have 

to make use of other parking spots in the area when they attend Sunday services. 

R.R. at 62a. While he could not provide the exact number of other parking spaces 

available in the vicinity, Larson stated that church attendees are able to park on 12th 

Street in front of the church building and in front of Canivan’s property, directly 

across the street from the church building, in a grassy area along the riverbank, and 

on Church Street about a block from the Church. Id. at 59a-62a. Larson also stated, 

in response to opposing counsel’s questions about whether the geography of the 

Property justified the expansion, that the Property is fairly level, with no hills or 

differences in topography. R.R. at 66a. Larson stated that the Church could continue 

to use the Property as a church and parking lot without the variances but stated it 

would be “more difficult” because the construction of the Tallman bridge reduced 

the number of on-street parking spaces in the area. Id. at 69a, 71a-72a. Larson 

further stated that he had no data or indication that anyone could not attend the 

Church’s services because they could not find parking. Id. at 75a. In addition to the 

current need for parking spaces, Larson also testified that the Church was seeking 

the 10 additional parking spaces “[t]o allow for church growth” in the future. Id. at 

76a. 

The Church also presented the testimony of Diane Spry, a Borough 

resident who has been a member of the Church for over 65 years. R.R. at 84a. Spry 
6

testified that she attends services every Sunday and observes both how many people 

regularly attend the services and where they park. Id. at 85a-87a. Specifically, she 

stated that the Church’s weekly attendance ranges from 25 to 35 people, 10 to 15 of 

which on average are children, and could go as high as 50 depending on the time of 

year and whether it is a holiday.5 Id. at 85a-86a, 105a-06a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 7. 

Spry also explained that attendees drive to the Church and based on the number of 

vehicles she has observed, she opined that the current parking lot is not sufficient to 

accommodate attendees. R.R. at 86a-88a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 7. She noted that 

those who do not get a space in the Church’s parking lot have to park on either side

of 12th Street, in the grassy area along 12th Street, or on Court Street, if spaces are 

available. R.R. at 91a-92a. 

Spry further testified on cross-examination that when the Tallman 

bridge was constructed in 2011, the traffic patterns changed, as Church Street

became a one-way street. R.R. at 94a. According to Spry, 10 on-street parking 

spaces were lost along 12th Street due to the construction of the Tallman bridge and 

the installation of guardrails on either side thereof. Id. at 95a-97a. She stated that 

both the construction of the bridge and the changed traffic pattern had an impact on 

Church members’ parking. Id. at 96a. Spry acknowledged that some people do walk 

to the Church, which would not require use of the parking lot. Id. at 108a. 

Landscape architect Michael Wood, of Woodland Design Associates 

Inc., also testified on behalf of the Church. Wood prepared the site plan6that the 

5 Spry later explained on cross-examination that the Church no longer keeps records of 

individuals who are baptized members of the Church. She stated that, as of several years ago and 

to the best of her knowledge, only approximately 19 or 20 people were baptized and considered 

members of the Church; however, she noted, everyone who attends the Church is treated as or 

considered to be a member. R.R. at 104a. 

6 The revised parking expansion plan was submitted as Applicant Exhibit A-10. R.R. at 

113a; ZHB Decision, Applicant Exhibit A-10 (revised parking expansion plan). 
7

Church submitted along with its application, and he was also involved in the 1998 

variance for the Church’s original parking lot. R.R. at 109a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 

8. Wood estimated that seven parking spaces in the grassy area along 12th Street 

were lost due to construction of the Tallman bridge and that four additional on-street 

parking spaces were lost sometime after 2005. R.R. at 110a-11a, 142a-44a. Wood 

characterized the site plan he developed as “simply an extension of what the parking 

lot was from 1998[,]” which is relevant because the ZHB already decided that a 

parking lot could be placed in the area. Id. at 114a, 116a. He testified that the 1998 

design plan also had to meet certain requirements regarding property lines and 

setbacks, as well as proper engineering standards for the health, safety, and welfare 

of the public. Id. at 116a-19a. He then stated that the current site plan is a 

“comprehensive design” and that he “strove to meet all the requirements that we 

possibly could, but we could not meet them all.” Id. at 120a. Wood explained 

specifically that, because of “the unique conditions of the lot and the shapes and 

sizes of the buildings,” he was unable to meet the Ordinance’s requirements for a 

20-foot buffer and the maximum lot coverage. Id. at 124a; see also id. at 120a 

(including narrowness of the lot and the area between the existing buildings). 

Further, the plan had to accommodate “the traffic patterns that now exist with oneway traffic on Church Street to one-way traffic on 12th [Street] and that people 

would be able to get in and out safely[,]” and also “parking that is easier and more 

negotiable for older citizens” and others who use the Church’s facility. Id. at 124a25a. 

Wood assured that he took steps to achieve and minimize impacts to 

the neighboring residential properties with respect to the 20-foot buffer and, in doing 
8

so, took several photographs to aid him in his analysis. R.R. at 130a-32a.7 Wood 

explained his photos as follows: the first photo (Applicant Exhibit A-13) showed 

that the proposed expanded parking area is bounded on the south side by an adjoining 

parking lot (R.R. at 132a-34a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 4); the second photo (Applicant 

Exhibit A-14) looked directly east to another neighbor’s property, which has a fence 

across the back of it along the border with the Church (R.R. at 134a-36a; ZHB 

Decision, F.F. ¶ 4); and the third photo (Applicant Exhibit A-15) looked to the 

northeast, which showed Canivan’s garage (R.R. at 136a). Wood stated that, 

although Canivan’s garage blocks the view of the expanded parking area, that area 

would nevertheless maintain a 10-foot distance from Canivan’s property. R.R at 

136a. 

Wood noted that many lots in the Borough’s R-5 District well exceed 

the maximum 35% lot coverage, including the Church’s lot, which has 52% lot 

coverage. Id. at 138a, 164a-67a. He explained that given the recent demolition of 

the building and garage on the Property and the Church’s plan to return that area to 

natural vegetation, the 10 additional parking spaces would only increase the 

impervious lot coverage of the Property by 4%, from 52% to 56% lot coverage. R.R. 

at 139a-41a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 9. 

On cross-examination, Wood stated that the expanded parking area 

could be seen from Canivan’s property, but Canivan’s garage is the closest to the 

parking area and the buffer would be between the garage and the parking area. R.R. 

at 152a-55a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 10; see also R.R. at 136a. 

7 The photos were submitted into the record as Applicant Exhibits A-13, A-14, and A-15. 

R.R. at 130a-31a; ZHB Decision, Applicant Exhibits A-13 (photo looking south showing 

neighboring parking lot), A-14 (photo looking east showing privacy fence), & A-15 (photo looking 

northeast at Canivan property garage). 
9

Canivan’s daughter, Britta Bakos, testified8first in opposition to the 

Church’s application. Bakos stated that she currently lives part-time in the Borough 

with her mother and part-time in New York City. R.R. at 172a. Bakos opposes the

Church’s application due to privacy, noise, and environmental issues, noting that if 

more cars park in the Church’s parking lot, there will be more noxious fumes and 

gasoline in their backyard. Id. at 173a. She testified that she can see the Church’s 

proposed parking area from her mother’s home and that having the required 20-foot 

planting strip as a buffer would help alleviate her privacy concerns. Id. at 175a76a. Bakos stated that she is familiar with the area and did not believe there was a 

need for extra parking spaces on the Property, noting that there are approximately 

six parking spots available on 12th Street, six to eight spots in the grassy area along 

the river, and four additional spots north of the Tallman bridge. Id. at 176a-78a. 

Further, Bakos has observed that there are still on-street parking spots available on 

Sunday mornings. Id. at 178a-79a; see also ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 11. On crossexamination, Bakos admitted that the on-street parking spaces on 12th Street and 

Court Street are not always available on Sundays. R.R. at 182a-83a; ZHB Decision, 

F.F. ¶ 12. 

Canivan also testified in opposition to the Church’s application, stating

that she has owned and resided at 212 12th Street since 1947, which directly abuts 

the Property.

9

 R.R. at 188a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 13. Canivan noted that she no 

longer works and is therefore home most of the time to observe what goes on in her 

neighborhood. R.R. at 189a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 13. With respect to parking on 

8 Bakos provided a written statement that was read at the hearing and admitted into the 

record as Exhibit I-1. R.R. at 180a-82a, 186a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 12. 

9 Canivan also provided a written statement that was read at the hearing and admitted into 

the record as Exhibit I-4. R.R. at 209a-13a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 15. 
10

the street in the vicinity of the Church, she stated that during the week, 8 to 10 cars 

park in the grassy area along the river, across from her home, and as many as 6 cars 

park along 12th Street. R.R. at 189a-90a. However, on Sunday mornings, “there is 

not much activity” and there are not many cars parked in the vicinity. Id. at 190a. 

On several Sunday mornings, specifically October 14 and 21, 2018, Canivan took 

pictures of the area around her home and the Church, and these pictures were 

admitted into evidence. Id. at 190a-205a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 14 & Exhibits I-2 

(photos individually labeled “a” through “r”), and I-3 (one photo). 

In addition, Canivan testified that the Church’s Property slopes 

downward, approximately two to three feet, to her driveway and garage. R.R. at 

206a. It concerns Canivan that she would be able to see the area of the proposed 

additional parking from her house, and she testified that there needs to be some kind 

of screening – ideally a fence – between the proposed grassy area for children to 

play and her property to ensure both privacy and the safety of the children. Id. at 

207a-08a, 217a-18a. Finally, Canivan testified she is an avid gardener and enjoys 

spending time outside, and the environmental impact of the Church adding more 

parking spaces would add pollutants, encroach on her property, and “disrupt [her] 

way of life.” Id. at 189a, 210a-11a. Specifically, she complained about the 

pollutants from idling cars; the potential added motor oil, grease, and gasoline 

dripping onto the parking lot; the heavy metals from car batteries; and the additional 

“ice melt” that would be needed in winter. Id. at 211a. Canivan stated her belief 

that the additional parking spaces are “both unnecessary, as we have seen from the 

pictures, and unwanted.” R.R. at 212a; ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶ 15. 

At its November 15, 2018 meeting, the ZHB unanimously voted to 

grant the Church’s variance application “as proposed with the condition that the
11

[Church] provide screening along [] Canivan’s back property.” Original Record

(O.R.), Item No. 9, Decision on Honesdale Community Church, at 2; R.R. at 258a. 

The ZHB formalized that vote through a written decision issued on December 7, 

2018. R.R. at 17a-21a; Appellant’s Br., Appendix A. In that decision, the ZHB

made the above factual findings based on the testimony offered at the hearing and 

other evidence entered into the record. The ZHB then made the following relevant 

conclusions of law: 

3. The proposed expansion of the Church parking lot is 

needed to provide for the increased size of the 

congregation, both currently and for the future, and is also 

needed due to the reduction of the number of street 

parking [spots] in the area after 2005. 

4. The [v]ariances are necessary for the reasonable use of 

the Property as a [c]hurch, and additional off-street 

parking cannot be constructed on the Property in 

conformance with the [] Ordinance. 

5. This [ZHB] previously granted a variance in 1998 to 

allow for the establishment of the existing parking lot, 

recognizing the need to provide off-street parking for the 

pre[]existing church. 

6. The [v]ariances requested are the minimum variances

necessary to provide for additional parking and do not 

have a substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties 

or the community. 

7. The concerns of . . . [Canivan] have been addressed by 

the following condition: that the Church be required to 

plant evergreen trees as a buffer along the boundary line 

of the Church and the Canivan [p]roperty line . . . . 

Id. at 20a; Appellant’s Br, Appendix A at A.4.
12

Canivan appealed the ZHB’s decision to the trial court, which did not 

accept any additional evidence.10 R.R. at 5a-11a. On December 10, 2019, the trial 

court issued an order, without an accompanying opinion, denying Canivan’s appeal 

and finding in favor of the Church. O.R., Item No. 24; Appellant’s Br., Appendix 

B. In doing so, the trial court

agree[d] that [the Church’s] witnesses and exhibits clearly 

established that the necessary factual elements are present 

to provide adequate grounds for granting the variance [sic] 

under the standards set forth in the Ordinance. Thus, it is 

evidence [sic] that the [ZHB] found substantial evidence[,]

and[,] therefore, the decision of the [ZHB] shall be 

affirmed. 

Id. at 1, n.1. Canivan then filed the instant appeal to this Court.

11

 

Issues

Canivan argues that the trial court erred in affirming the ZHB’s decision

granting the Church’s variance application because the ZHB failed to conclude that 

10 In her notice of land use appeal, Canivan requested that the trial court receive additional 

testimony and evidence “due to the inadequate evidence and record presented” at the ZHB’s 

hearing. R.R. at 11a. The trial court denied Canivan’s petition by order dated July 8, 2019. Id. at 

260a. 

11 Where a trial court takes no additional evidence on appeal from a decision of a zoning 

board, 

our scope of review is limited to determining whether the [zoning 

b]oard committed an error of law or “a manifest abuse of 

discretion.” Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of 

Adjustment, . . . 462 A.2d 637, 639 ([Pa. ]1983). A zoning board 

abuses its discretion “only if its findings are not supported by 

substantial evidence.” Id. at 640. Substantial evidence is “such 

relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Id.

Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pequea Township, 180 A.3d 500, 504 n.1 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2018). 
13

the Church did not satisfy each of the five criteria necessary for a variance. Canivan 

further maintains that the ZHB’s findings do not support the conclusion that the 

Church satisfied each of the five criteria for a variance and that there is not 

substantial evidence of record to support each requirement here. 

Discussion

Section 910.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code 

(MPC)12 provides that 

[t]he board may grant a variance, provided that all of the 

following findings are made where relevant in a given 

case:

(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or 

conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or 

shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional 

topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the 

particular property and that the unnecessary hardship is 

due to such conditions and not the circumstances or 

conditions generally created by the provisions of the 

zoning ordinance in the neighborhood or district in which 

the property is located.

(2) That because of such physical circumstances or 

conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be 

developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the 

zoning ordinance and that the authorization of a variance 

is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the 

property.

(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created 

by the appellant.

(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the 

essential character of the neighborhood or district in which 

the property is located, nor substantially or permanently 

12 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202. Section 910.2 was 

added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. § 10910.2. 
14

impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent 

property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare.

(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the 

minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent 

the least modification possible of the regulation in issue.

53 P.S. § 10910.2(a).13 While a variance applicant must show that unnecessary 

hardship will result if a variance is denied and that the proposed use will not be 

contrary to the public interest, our Supreme Court has noted that the grant of a 

dimensional variance is only a reasonable adjustment of the zoning regulations and 

of lesser moment than the grant of a use variance:

When seeking a dimensional variance within a permitted 

use, the [applicant] is asking only for a reasonable 

adjustment of the zoning regulations in order to utilize the 

property in a manner consistent with the applicable 

regulations. Thus, the grant of a dimensional variance is 

of lesser moment than the grant of a use variance, since 

the latter involves a proposal to use the property in a 

manner that is wholly outside the zoning regulation.

Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43, 47 (Pa. 

1998) (emphasis added). Therefore, applicants seeking a dimensional variance, as 

opposed to a use variance, are subject to a more relaxed standard with respect to 

establishing unnecessary hardship, under which 

[c]ourts may consider multiple factors, including the 

economic detriment to the applicant if the variance was 

denied, the financial hardship created by any work 

necessary to bring the building into strict compliance with 

the zoning requirements[,] and the characteristics of the 

surrounding neighborhood.” Hertzberg, 721 A.2d at 50. 

Although Hertzberg eased the requirements for a variance, 

13 Through its Ordinance, the Borough has expressly adopted the variance test set forth in 

Section 910.2(a) of the MPC. See Ordinance § 210-41. 
15

it did not remove them. Tidd v. Lower Saucon Township 

Zoning Hearing Board, 118 A.3d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 

Moreover, despite a more relaxed standard, it is still the 

case that “[t]he burden on an applicant seeking a variance 

is a heavy one, and the reasons for granting the variance 

must be substantial, serious and compelling.” Singer v. 

Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 29 A.3d 144, 

149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 

Although Hertzberg sets forth a more relaxed standard for 

a dimensional variance, it does not stand for the 

proposition that “a variance must be granted from a 

dimensional requirement that prevents or financially 

burdens a property owner’s ability to employ his property 

exactly as he wishes, so long as the use itself is permitted.” 

Yeager v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Allentown, 

779 A.2d 595, 598 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (emphasis in 

original)[.] 

Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pequea Township, 180 A.3d 500, 507 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (emphasis in original). 

Here, the ZHB’s findings with respect to the criteria necessary for a 

dimensional variance are supported by the record. We note at the outset that the 

ZHB, “as fact-finder, is the sole judge of credibility.” Marshall v. City of 

Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323, 331 (Pa. 2014). While the ZHB here did not specifically 

opine as to the credibility of the witnesses, it accurately described their testimony 

and implicitly credited that of the Church’s witnesses, given its findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. 

In particular, the undisputed testimony of the Church’s witnesses 

demonstrates that attendance at Sunday services is anywhere from 25 to 35 people, 

or even more depending on the time of year. Larson’s testimony establishes that in 

the weeks prior to the hearing, there were 15 to 27 cars in the area driven by Church 

attendees. There are only 10 parking spaces in the lot. Further, the uncontested 
16

testimony of Larson, Wood, and Spry establish the changing conditions in parking 

within the Church’s immediate vicinity due to construction of the Tallman bridge, 

specifically the significant loss of available on-street parking, being at least 10 

spaces. 

Wood further testified that he was unable to add the parking spaces the 

Church needed to accommodate its congregation and still meet the Ordinance’s 

requirements, in particular given the size and narrowness of the lot. R.R. at 119a20a, 124a. Wood explained specifically that, because of “the unique conditions of 

the lot and the shapes and sizes of the buildings,” he was unable to meet the 

Ordinance’s requirements for a 20-foot buffer and the maximum lot coverage. Id. 

at 124a; see also id. at 120a (including narrowness of the lot and the area between 

the existing buildings). Further, the plan had to accommodate “the traffic patterns 

that now exist with one-way traffic on Church Street to one-way traffic on 12th 

[Street] and that people would be able to get in and out safely[,]” and also “parking 

that is easier and more negotiable for older citizens” and others who use the 

Church’s facility. Id. at 124a-25a. This amounts to substantial evidence to support 

the ZHB’s conclusion that the existing 14-space parking lot is not adequate to 

support the Church’s current or growing congregation, and, in turn, that the 

dimensional variances are necessary for the reasonable use of the Property. 

In a case directly on point, Daley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper 

Moreland Township, 770 A.2d 815 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), this Court upheld the zoning 

hearing board’s grant of a dimensional variance to a church to allow a buffer zone 

of 5 feet rather than 50 feet so that the church could add an additional 80 parking 

spaces. We held that the church demonstrated that “the parking situation had 

become a serious hardship to its congregation and had prevented it from reasonable 
17

use of its property.” Id. at 820. We explained that “the [c]hurch did not create the 

parking problem” and that “the parking situation had become a serious hardship to 

its congregation.” Id. Since the time the church was originally constructed, “the 

surrounding neighborhood [had] changed causing the parking problem and creating 

unnecessary hardship for the church.” Id. As such, we held that the findings 

regarding unnecessary hardship were supported by the testimony and that there was 

no abuse of discretion in granting the dimensional variance. Id.

Here, just as in Daley, the Church did not create the parking problem, 

the lack of parking has become a hardship to the Church and its members, and it is 

prevented from reasonable use of its property without the addition of the parking 

spaces. Specifically, the surrounding neighborhood has changed, causing the 

hardship for the Church since 2005. The Tallman bridge construction caused the 

loss of 10 on-street parking spaces; Church Street is now a one-way street; and 

further, as testified by Wood, the uniqueness and shape of the lot was the reason 

Wood could not meet the Ordinance’s 20-foot buffer requirements. According to 

the undisputed evidence, this has caused a significant loss of the available on-street 

parking now and for the future use of the Church. Further, in Daley, this Court under 

the same circumstances granted a dimensional variance. As the ZHB found:

“the church needs to expand the parking lot because 

they don’t have adequate off-street parking,”

“some attendees have expressed concern about 

being able to find parking nearby” and,

“on-street parking spaces are not always available 

on Sundays along 12th and Court Streets” 

(ZHB Decision, F.F. ¶¶ 5, 7, 12) (emphasis added).
18

Based on these findings of fact, the ZHB concluded: “[t]he proposed 

expansion of the Church parking lot is needed to provide for the increased size of 

the congregation, both currently and for the future, and is also needed due to the 

reduction of the number of street parking in the area after 2005.” ZHB Decision at 

4 (emphasis added). The ZHB also concluded: “[t]he [v]ariances are necessary for 

the reasonable use of the Property as a Church.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Moreover, there is ample evidence to support the determinations that 

the variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to provide for 

additional parking and will not substantially impair Canivan’s use of her property or 

be detrimental to the public welfare. As Larson testified, and the documents 

submitted into evidence make clear, the Church withdrew its original application 

and drastically changed its current plans to reduce the number of additional parking 

spaces and accommodate Canivan’s concerns. R.R. at 46a-47a. The ZHB also 

conditioned the approval of the variances upon the Church planting evergreen trees 

as a buffer along the boundary line with Canivan’s property, thus alleviating her 

general concern with being able to see the Church’s expanded parking lot from her 

home. It bears noting that the current variances granted by the ZHB are not much 

different than the variance previously granted to the Church in 1998. For example, 

the current variances only increase the maximum lot coverage from 52% to 56%. 

See R.R. at 139a-41a. Wood also testified as to the characteristics of the surrounding 

neighborhood, in particular the number of other parking lots that exceed the 35% lot 

coverage in the surrounding area. Id. at 138a, 164a-67a. Finally, Wood testified 

that he designed the plan for the expansion of the Church’s parking lot in 

consideration of not just the Ordinance but “proper engineering standards for [the] 

health, safety, and welfare of the public.” Moreover, he noted the inability to create 
19

additional parking in the current lot due to the narrowness of the lot and shape of the 

buildings. R.R. at 116a-19a. 

 It is well established that “a zoning board’s findings are owed deference

particularly its determination that a variance applicant satisfied the criterion for

dimensional variances. This is particularly so in light of a zoning board’s ‘expertise 

in and knowledge of local conditions.’” Tidd, 118 A.3d at 9 (quoting Marshall, 97 

A.3d at 333). 

 Precedent also supports the granting of the dimensional variances here.

As in Daley, the Church clearly meets the criteria for a dimensional variance, even 

exceeding the standard by meeting the higher standard for a use variance, showing 

undue hardship by uniqueness of the lot and building. Zaruta v. Zoning Hearing 

Board of City of Wilkes-Barre, 543 A.2d 1282, 1284 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). See also

Section 910.2(a) of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10910.2(a) (requiring that an unnecessary 

hardship must arise from physical circumstances, and not the circumstances or 

conditions generally created by provisions of the zoning ordinance in the 

neighborhood of the district where the property is located).

The ZHB’s findings are clearly supported by substantial evidence for 

the granting of a dimensional variance. As such, we can find no error of law or abuse 

of discretion. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. 

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Paula Canivan, :

Appellant :

: No. 98 C.D. 2020 

v. :

:

Honesdale Borough Zoning Board :

and Honesdale Community Church, :

Inc. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2022, the order of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Wayne County, dated December 10, 2019, is AFFIRMED. 

__________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge