In a ruling that reinforces strict standards for granting variances under Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that applicants must demonstrate that a hardship is tied to the property itself — not to the applicant's business goals or design preferences.

In Shultz v. Zoning Hearing Board of Mount Joy Township, the court affirmed a lower court ruling that denied a variance request by Gettysburg Concrete seeking permission to exceed Mount Joy Township's 50-foot height limit for a planned concrete batch plant and asphalt batch plant on a 20.18-acre parcel.

Background

Gettysburg Concrete operates on an adjacent property in Cumberland Township but sought to relocate its processing facilities to the Mount Joy parcel to expand quarry operations. The proposed plants required silos and structures as tall as 85 feet to function properly, exceeding the local zoning height restriction.

The Mount Joy ZHB approved the company's application for a dimensional variance, citing engineering requirements and the absence of a practical alternative. But the decision faced opposition from neighboring property owners, who argued that the proposed height was incompatible with the surrounding area's character and would negatively impact local viewsheds, including the nearby Gettysburg National Military Park.

Court’s Reasoning

The Adams County Court of Common Pleas' reversed the grant of the variance, finding that the company failed to demonstrate the "unnecessary hardship" required for such relief under Pennsylvania law.

The Commonwealth Court upheld the decision on several grounds:

• No Unique Hardship: The court emphasized that the height variance did not stem from unique physical characteristics of the property. Instead, the company's hardship was self-created, based on its operational preferences for taller structures.
• Alternative Uses Possible: The property could still be developed for numerous other permitted uses under the zoning ordinance, which includes more than 40 potential uses by right and additional conditional uses.
• Precedent Misapplied: Gettysburg Concrete argued that the variance aligned with the court's prior ruling in Towamencin Township, where a variance was granted for a taller silo to sustain an existing agricultural operation. However, the court distinguished the cases, noting that Towamencin involved a preexisting use and economic hardship tied to unique land conditions, neither of which applied here.

This case serves as a reminder to developers of the heavy burden in securing variances, particularly in areas where zoning laws aim to protect historic and scenic landscapes.

For more information, please contact Daniel Lyons at 215.918.3693 or daniellyons@foxrothschild.com or any member of Fox Rothschild’s Real Estate Department.