Background
Toll Mid-Atlantic proposed 64 homes on nearly 66 acres in Upper Uwchlan Township. A band of steep slopes separated the developable land from Greenridge Road, and wetlands, floodplain, and a stream further constrained access. Toll sought a variance to disturb prohibitively steep slopes for roads, walls, sidewalks, and utilities.
The zoning hearing board granted relief. Neighbors appealed, arguing that a lower-density design could use a different access point and avoid or reduce the disturbance. The Chester County Court of Common Pleas concluded that the board had not adequately analyzed whether Toll created the asserted hardship by choosing to maximize development and reversed outright.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court agreed that the board’s analysis was deficient but held that reversal was the wrong remedy. Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code requires relevant findings on unnecessary hardship, whether the hardship is self-created, and whether the requested variance is the minimum relief needed. The quantum of proof can vary with the type of variance, but the board could not omit the central dispute presented by the competing development evidence.
The missing question was whether the land’s physical conditions prevented reasonable development generally or merely prevented Toll’s preferred 64-unit configuration. A desire to maximize profitability or development potential does not itself establish unnecessary hardship. Because the board had not resolved that distinction, neither Common Pleas nor the appellate court could supply the factfinding.
The court vacated and directed a remand for a new board decision, with additional evidence permitted if appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- A zoning board must address variance factors that are relevant to the dispute before it.
- Unnecessary hardship concerns reasonable use of the property, not merely the applicant’s preferred density or profitability.
- A board should distinguish hardship created by physical site conditions from hardship created by the proposed design.
- When findings are inadequate, remand—not outright denial—may be the proper remedy.
Why It Matters
The published decision affects development and objector strategy across Pennsylvania. Applicants should present alternatives showing why less intensive designs do not eliminate the hardship; objectors should connect feasible alternatives to the statutory minimum-variance and self-created-hardship criteria.
Boards need findings that engage the actual competing theories. A conclusory hardship determination risks another hearing and years of delay, while a clear comparison of site constraints and design choices creates a reviewable record.