The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled on a significant zoning case involving Toll Mid-Atlantic LP Company, Inc. The court reversed a lower court's decision that had overturned a zoning board's approval for a variance allowing Toll to disturb steep slopes for a residential development in Upper Uwchlan Township. This ruling impacts local zoning laws and development practices, particularly concerning environmental regulations related to steep slopes.
The case, titled O.F. Fields & G. Stein v. Upper Uwchlan Township Zoning Hearing Board, arose from a dispute over Toll's plans to construct a 64-unit residential development on property that included areas classified as having prohibitive slopes. The ruling affects residents in the area, especially those living near the proposed development, who have raised concerns about flooding and environmental impact.
Background
Toll Mid-Atlantic LP Company, Inc. is the equitable owner of two adjoining parcels located at 100 Greenridge Road, Upper Uwchlan Township. The property is situated in both the R-2 Residential Zoning District and the F-1 Flexible Development Overlay Zoning District. Toll's development plan involved demolishing existing structures on the property and constructing new residential units.
A band of steep slopes, defined by the township's zoning ordinance, runs through the property, complicating the development plans. These slopes are categorized as precautionary (15% to 25% grade) and prohibitive (over 25% grade). Toll's plans required disturbing these slopes to create access roads and utilities for the new homes.
The dispute began when Toll applied for conditional use approval from the Upper Uwchlan Township Board of Supervisors in 2021. The board approved the conditional use with 45 conditions, including that primary access to the development be from Greenridge Road. This decision came after significant community opposition to using Lauren Lane, an existing road in the nearby Stonehedge development, as the primary access point.
In March 2023, Toll sought a variance from the zoning board to disturb the prohibitive slopes for the construction of access roads and utilities. The zoning board held hearings where both Toll and local residents presented their concerns and expert testimonies regarding the potential environmental impacts of the development.
The Ruling
On July 25, 2023, the Upper Uwchlan Township Zoning Hearing Board granted Toll's variance request, citing the necessity of the access road for the development. The board found that Toll had demonstrated compliance with the criteria for a variance, particularly given the unique physical circumstances of the property.
The court ruled, "[Toll] has proven compliance with the conditional use criteria to disturb the precautionary slopes for the improvements proposed on the Plan... the proposed disturbance to prohibitive slopes of approximately one acre is the minimum necessary to afford relief."
However, this decision was appealed by local residents Owen F. Fields and Gerald Stein, who argued that the zoning board had overlooked critical expert testimony that suggested a less dense development could be achieved without the need for a variance. They contended that Toll's hardship was self-created by its desire to maximize development potential.
The Court of Common Pleas reviewed the case without taking additional evidence and sided with the residents, concluding that the zoning board had erred in its analysis of the hardship criteria necessary for granting a variance. The court found that the zoning board failed to sufficiently address whether Toll's claimed hardship was self-inflicted and reversed the zoning board's decision.
Impact
The Commonwealth Court's ruling to vacate the lower court's decision and remand the case back to the zoning board has significant implications for future zoning applications in Pennsylvania. It underscores the importance of thorough analysis when considering variances, particularly regarding environmental regulations and community concerns.
This ruling may set a precedent for how zoning boards evaluate claims of hardship and the necessity of variances, especially in cases involving steep slopes and environmental protection. Developers may need to provide more substantial evidence that their plans do not create self-inflicted hardships when seeking variances in the future.
What's Next
The case will return to the Upper Uwchlan Township Zoning Hearing Board for further proceedings. The board will need to conduct a new analysis regarding whether Toll faces an unnecessary hardship in developing the property or if the claimed hardship relates solely to its chosen development plan. The outcome of this case may influence future development plans in the area and how zoning regulations are interpreted.