Court Opinion

ID: 9905906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 16:12:33.113012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:58.449762
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Martin J. Hacker and Patricia Hacker, :
                             Appellants :
                                        :
             v.                         : No. 1473 C.D. 2022
                                        : Argued: September 11, 2023
Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough :
of North Catasauqua, New Image          :
Enterprises, LLC and Neel Shail, LLC :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
            HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                    FILED: November 30, 2023

      Martin J. Hacker and Patricia Hacker (collectively, Neighbors) appeal from
the December 1, 2022 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
(Common Pleas) denying their appeal of the Borough of North Catasauqua
(Borough) Zoning Hearing Board’s (Board) order granting New Image Enterprises,
LLC and Neel Shail, LLC (collectively, Landowners) numerous dimensional
variances and a special exception to convert an existing church and rectory into a
multi-unit apartment building and single-family home, respectively, and to separate
the two uses through a subdivision. On appeal, Neighbors assert the Board erred in
concluding Landowners carried their burden of establishing the requirements for
dimensional variances and a special exception. Upon review, we reverse.
                                      I.      Background
       Landowners’ property, located at 1021 Fifth Street, North Catasauqua,
Pennsylvania (the Property), is a 180-foot deep, rectangular-shaped lot with 80 feet
of road frontage on Fifth Street. Board Dec., 4/22/22, at 4-5. The Property contains
multiple structures, including a church, which was built in 1899, a rectory, which
was built in 1950, a garage, and a brick shed. Id. at 5; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at
126a. These existing structures cover a significant portion of the Property. See R.R.
at 126a.
       The Borough placed the Property in the R-2 Zoning District (two-family
residential) when it adopted its Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance)1 in 1995. Board Dec.,
4/22/22, at 3. Landowners now want to convert the existing church into a multiplex2
with four one-bedroom apartments and the rectory into a single-family residence.
Id. Landowners also want to subdivide the Property into two lots in order to separate
the two uses. Id. at 3-4. Before seeking approval for their subdivision,3 Landowners
first applied to the Board for a special exception,4 because a multiplex is only

1
    Borough of North Catasauqua, Pa. Zoning Ordinance (1995), as amended.
2
    The Ordinance defines a “multiplex” as “an attached multi-family dwelling with a minimum of
three (3) dwelling units per building. Each multiplex building has yards on all four sides and may
have shared and common elements among the units including but not necessarily limited to
hallways and entranceways.” Ordinance, § 502.
3
    We note that the proposed subdivision plan (which forms the basis for the variances requested)
has not been approved by the Borough. Accordingly, any approval of the requested variances
would need to be conditioned upon receipt of that subdivision approval. The Board did not impose
such a condition here. Because we reverse on other grounds, however, we need not further address
this issue.
4
    “[W]e recognize that a special exception is not an exception to a zoning ordinance but, rather,
is a conditionally permitted use, allowed by the [Borough] if specifically listed standards are met.”

                                                 2
permitted in the R-2 Zoning District by special exception. Id. at 3; see also
Ordinance, § 402(1.3).        In addition, Landowners applied to the Board for 11
dimensional variances,5 including variances for the minimum lot widths, side yard
widths, total lot areas, building coverage percentages, open areas, setbacks for all
structures, and parking lot size, orientation, and spacing. Board Dec., 4/22/22, at 3.
       The Board held a hearing on Landowners’ requests on March 22, 2022. R.R.
at 193a. Mark Zaffrano, owner of New Image Enterprises, LLC, testified and
provided the Board with the following background information.                     Landowners
purchased the Property approximately six months before the Board’s hearing from
a church group that had outgrown the space. Id. at 210a. Between the time of their
purchase and the Board’s hearing, Landowners’ realtor spoke with four or five
different church groups about their interest in utilizing the church building. Id. at
214a. Landowners’ realtor also spoke with persons looking to bring in a private
business (a hydroponics education center) and a community group. Id. at 215a.
Ultimately, none of these entities pursued the Property, so Landowners decided to
repurpose the Property into residential uses. Id.
       Brian Gasda, Landowners’ Engineer (Engineer), also testified before the
Board. R.R. at 222a-23a. Engineer explained the subdivision plan and the need for
each dimensional variance and the special exception. See id. at 224a-45a. Engineer
opined that the existing structures on the Property do not conform to the Ordinance

Elizabethtown/Mt. Joy Assocs., L.P. v. Mt. Joy Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 934 A.2d 759, 764 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2007) (citation omitted). “Application for a special exception is to be granted or denied
by the [zoning hearing board] pursuant to the express standards and criteria set forth in the
applicable zoning ordinance.” Id. (citation omitted).
5
   “[U]nlike a special exception, a variance is not provided for in the zoning ordinance, but is
permission to deviate from the ordinance in either the dimensions of the improvements made to
the land or in the use of the land.” Nowicki v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Monaca, 91 A.3d
287, 291 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).

                                               3
and are unique physical circumstances that cause Landowners an unnecessary
hardship. See id. at 230a. Engineer repeatedly blamed this hardship for the need for
dimensional variances, stating “[y]ou can’t physically have the full setback and draw
a line through [the Property] to make it even on both sides and provide the minimum
setback,” “it’s impossible to divide th[is] into two lots and still meet the minimum
lot area,” and “the lot line has to be where it is, and that leaves us with slight shortage
on the building coverage.” Id. at 230a, 235a, 236a. Ultimately, Engineer opined
that Landowners did not create the unnecessary hardship, the Property cannot be
developed in strict conformity with the Ordinance, and the requested dimensional
variances are necessary for the reasonable use of the Property. Id. at 236a-37a.
       Although Landowners did not present any additional witnesses before the
Board, the Board heard testimony from 11 concerned citizens, including Neighbors.
See R.R. at 246a-77a. These citizens all opposed Landowners’ development and
subdivision of the Property, as they believed it would change the character of the
neighborhood, reduce their property values, and exacerbate parking, traffic, and
noise problems in the neighborhood. See id.
       After hearing closing arguments from the parties, the Board voted to grant
Landowners’ requested special exception and dimensional variances. Id. at 293a-
301a. The Board issued a written decision on April 22, 2022, wherein the Board
found the existing church and rectory buildings were nonconforming uses that
predated the Ordinance. Board Dec., 4/22/22, at 7. The Board deemed Mark
Zaffrano credible and found that “[h]e pursued several uses of the property including
as a church, youth group center, and hydroponic education center prior to pursuing
the current proposed use,” but “[u]ltimately, none of those options were feasible and
Mr. Zaffrano now seeks to subdivide the property into two lots for residential use.”

                                            4
Id. at 8. The Board also found the existing buildings “do not meet many of the
required building and parking setbacks, lot dimensions, ground cover, and open
space requirements of the [Ordinance].” Id. at 9. The Board deemed Engineer
credible and found, based upon his testimony, that “the buildings are pre-existing
and the structures cannot be modified in size, and the variance requests arise from
the unique physical characteristics of the [P]roperty, given how it was developed
prior to the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance.” Id. at 11. The Board also issued
conclusions of law, determining:

      11. Upon consideration of all the evidence presented by the
      [Landowners], the Board finds that [Landowners] have met all criteria
      for the grant of requested variances. Specifically, the Board finds that:

         a. The pre-existing structures on the [P]roperty create unique
            physical conditions peculiar to the [P]roperty and an unnecessary
            hardship on [Landowners];

         b. Due to the physical conditions of the [P]roperty, there is no
            possibility that the [P]roperty can be developed in strict
            conformity with the Zoning Ordinance, making a variance
            necessary to enable the reasonable use of the [P]roperty;

         c. No hardship has been created by [Landowners], as the structures
            are pre-existing;

         d. The requested variances are not detrimental to the public welfare;
            and

         e. The requested variances are the minimum necessary to afford
            relief and they represent the least modification of the regulations
            at issue.

      12. [Landowners] having established the requirements for the
      requested variances, the Board likewise finds that [Landowners] have
      established the requirements for the special exception under the
      [Ordinance].

                                         5
Id. at 27-28. The Board’s written decision concluded with an order granting
Landowners’ requests for a special exception and numerous dimensional variances.
Id. at 29-31.
      Neighbors appealed the Board’s order to Common Pleas, arguing the Board
erred in finding Landowners met each of the requirements for its multiple
dimensional variances. R.R. at 181a-82a. Neighbors also argued the Board erred in
granting Landowners a special exception because Landowners needed to obtain
numerous dimensional variances to be able to satisfy the requirements for a special
exception. Id. at 183a.
      Common Pleas reviewed the record of the Board’s proceedings and did not
receive additional evidence. R.R. at 321a-22a. With respect to Landowners’
dimensional variance requests, Common Pleas concluded “there is no basis to
disturb the Board’s determination that [Landowners] met the necessary requirements
for the requested dimensional variances.” Id. at 327a. With respect to Landowners’
special exception, Common Pleas opined “we cannot find that the Board . . .
committed an error of law in permitting [Landowners] to use dimensional variances
to meet the criteria for the special exception use of a multiplex.” Id. at 328a.
Accordingly, Common Pleas denied and dismissed Neighbors’ appeal.
      Neighbors appealed Common Pleas’ decision to this Court. On appeal,
Neighbors argue Landowners failed to carry their burden of proving they satisfy each
requirement for the grant of a dimensional variance. Neighbors also argue the Board
erred in determining Landowners met the criteria for a special exception, because
Landowners needed numerous dimensional variances to meet the Ordinance’s
objective requirements for a multiplex.

                                          6
                                       II.    Analysis
        Since “Common Pleas did not take additional evidence in this zoning appeal,”
this Court’s role “is limited to reviewing the [Board]’s decision, not that of Common
Pleas.” Dowds v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 242 A.3d 683, 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020)
(citation omitted). Thus, we evaluate whether the Board committed an error of law
or abused its discretion. Id. Regarding whether the Board committed an error of
law, we conduct a de novo review and “are not bound by the legal conclusions of the
governing body or lower court[].” EQT Prod. Co. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, 208
A.3d 1010, 1025 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted). Regarding whether the Board abused
its discretion, we will find an abuse of discretion “whenever the findings of the
governing body are not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 1024. Substantial
evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., 186 A.3d
375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
A.      Variances
        The party seeking a variance bears the burden of proof. See Marshall v. City
of Phila., 97 A.3d 323, 329 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted). Section 910.2(a) of the
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code,6 added by the Act of December 21,
1988, P.L. 1329, provides:

        (a) The [zoning hearing] board shall hear requests for variances where
            it is alleged that the provisions of the zoning ordinance inflict
            unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. The [zoning hearing]
            board may by rule prescribe the form of application and may
            require preliminary application to the zoning officer. The [zoning
            hearing] board may grant a variance, provided that all of the
            following findings are made where relevant in a given case:

6
    Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202.

                                               7
           (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 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). We recently explained our specific analysis for dimensional
variances as follows:

            Where, as here, we are faced with a dimensional variance as
      opposed to a use variance, our Supreme Court has articulated a more
      relaxed standard for granting a variance requiring a lesser quantum of
      proof. “When seeking a dimensional variance within a permitted use,
      the owner 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.” Hertzberg [v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of

                                         8
      Pittsburgh], 721 A.2d [43, 47 (Pa. 1998)]. 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.” Id.

             ....

            Notably, however, while Hertzberg eased the requirements in the
      context of dimensional variances, it did not negate them . . . . Tidd [v.
      Lower Saucon Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.], 118 A.3d [1, 8 (Pa. Cmwlth.
      2015)] . . . . Where no hardship is shown, or where the asserted
      hardship amounts merely to a landowner’s desire to increase
      profitability or maximize development potential, the unnecessary
      hardship criterion required to obtain a variance is not satisfied,
      even under the relaxed standard. Id.
Lawrenceville Stakeholders v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 247
A.3d 465, 474 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (emphasis added).
      As set forth above, one criterion requires a variance applicant to demonstrate
that it has not created the hardship that forms the basis for the variance. See 53 P.S.
§ 10910.2(a)(3). One example of a self-inflicted hardship is one that is created by a
subdivision. Nowicki v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 91 A.3d 287, 296 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2014) (citing Jaquelin v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Hatboro Borough, 558 A.2d 189,
192 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (stating that a subdivision of previously merged tracts into
separate lots, one of which was undersized, constituted a self-inflicted hardship));
see also Lawrenceville, 247 A.3d at 475 (stating that a hardship was self-inflicted
because a variance was needed only in order to subdivide the applicant’s property).
      Another criterion requires that the requested variance must represent the
minimum remedy necessary to afford relief and the least possible modification of
the zoning ordinance. 53 P.S. § 10910.2(a)(5). Thus, where no variance is needed
to make reasonable use of the property, a requested variance necessarily does not
constitute the minimum remedy that would afford relief. Lawrenceville, 247 A.3d

                                          9
at 475 (citing Dunn v. Middletown Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 143 A.3d 494, 505
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2016)).
      Here, Landowners are creating the hardship by seeking to subdivide the
Property without demonstrating the need to do so. There are already two uses on the
Property, which in itself is nonconforming. Both uses are permitted as preexisting
nonconforming uses. Landowners propose to change the church use to a multiplex,
which is allowed by special exception, and to change the rectory to a single-family
dwelling, which is a permitted use. Both proposed changes would reduce the
existing nonconformity. However, there is no evidence that Landowners sought to
make those changes by simply seeking a special exception for the multiplex without
subdividing the Property.
      The only evidence Landowners presented related to their need for pursuing
their proposed development of the Property was that their realtor spoke with a
handful of parties about utilizing the Property over a period of six months. See R.R.
at 11a-110a. When the realtor’s efforts were unsuccessful, Landowners chose their
desired use of the property. See id. at 215a. Landowners did not present any
testimony explaining whether the Property could continue to be used for its designed
purposes. See id. at 11a-110a. Landowners did not present any evidence regarding
their ability, or lack thereof, to conform the Property to the Ordinance’s
requirements. Id. Landowners also did not present any evidence as to the value, if
any, of the Property if they were to use it consistent with the Ordinance. Id.
      Landowners’ lack of evidence regarding their need to complete the
development they proposed is particularly problematic considering Landowners
could have continued to use the Property’s structures because the Board determined
those structures were nonconforming structures that predated the Ordinance. See

                                         10
Dipal Corp. v. Chartiers Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 261 A.3d 1097, 1099 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021) (citations omitted); see also Ordinance, § 901.                   In addition,
Landowners could have applied for a special exception to change the use of the
structures to another nonconforming use. See Ordinance, § 904. Landowners have
not shown they could not have kept the structures on one lot and changed the use of
those structures without needing all the dimensional variances they requested. They
also have not shown that the proposed subdivision and the resulting need for
variances arises from other than a desire to increase profits, which does not support
variance relief. See Lawrenceville, 247 A.3d at 474.
       Landowners have not shown they were unable to make reasonable use of the
Property without the requested dimensional variances. Dunn, 143 A.3d at 505.
Thus, Landowners have established only that they need dimensional variances to
subdivide7 the Property; therefore, they are “creating the alleged hardship [they] seek
to remedy . . . .” Accordingly, like the applicant in Dunn, Landowners have not
shown they suffer from an unnecessary hardship, even under the relaxed standard
set forth in Hertzberg. Lawrenceville, 247 A.3d at 475 (citation omitted).
       A “reasonable mind” would not accept Landowners’ presentation of evidence
as adequate to support the conclusion that Landowners suffer from an unnecessary
hardship. See Gorsline, 186 A.3d at 385. The Board’s contrary conclusion was not
supported by substantial evidence and was, therefore, an abuse of discretion. Id.
B.      Special Exception
       A multiplex is “permitted as a special exception within the [R-2 Zoning
District] provided that all of the standards and criteria for said use are satisfied.”

7
   Landowners’ decision to divide their 80-foot-wide Property, knowing the Ordinance requires
each lot to be 50 feet wide, created the need for numerous dimensional variances as well as the
very hardship Landowners complained about.

                                              11
Ordinance, § 402(1.3). Without dimensional variances, Landowners’ proposed
subdivision does not meet many of the criteria for a multiplex use, including, but not
limited to, the minimum lot area, open space percentage, setbacks, and building
coverage limit. See R.R. at 126a; Ordinance, § 502(R-5). As a result, Landowners
needed to obtain the dimensional variances they requested before they could qualify
for a special exception. Since we have determined the Board abused its discretion
in granting Landowners’ numerous dimensional variance requests, Landowners also
cannot establish they satisfy the standards and criteria for a multiplex use.
                                 III.   Conclusion
      Landowners did not carry their burden of establishing they met the
requirements for the Board to issue them numerous dimensional variances and a
special exception. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision affirming the
Board’s decision to grant Landowners’ requested variances and special exception.

                                               ______________________________
                                               STACY WALLACE, Judge

                                          12
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Martin J. Hacker and Patricia Hacker, :
                             Appellants :
                                        :
             v.                         : No. 1473 C.D. 2022
                                        :
Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough :
of North Catasauqua, New Image          :
Enterprises, LLC and Neel Shail, LLC :

                                 ORDER

     AND NOW, this 30th day of November 2023, the December 1, 2022 order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County is REVERSED.

                                      ______________________________
                                      STACY WALLACE, Judge