Background
High Street 410, LLC (Developer) sought preliminary land development approval from West Chester Borough Council to build a 128-unit multi-family building on a 1.332-acre trapezoidal property at 410 South High Street, located in the Town Center (TC) Zoning District. The property, previously a fast-food restaurant, sits between Dean and Price Streets. The Borough’s Planning Commission recommended approval by a 4-3 vote, and Council subsequently adopted a resolution approving the plan subject to 22 conditions. Neighboring objectors appealed to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the plan’s compliance with building height, parking, and setback requirements.
The building height dispute centered on the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance, which defines building height as the “vertical distance measured from the average level of the finished grade along all the exterior walls” to “the highest point of the roof in case of a flat roof.” Developer divided the building into two sections of different heights and calculated each section’s height separately, yielding a height of 44.06 feet—under the 45-foot maximum. Objectors measured height using the entire building, averaging all 94 data points and measuring to the single highest roofline, producing a calculation of 47.66 feet—exceeding the limit.
On parking, both sides submitted competing expert reports using different ITE Parking Generation Manual settings: Developer’s expert used the “Dense Multi-Use Urban” category (projecting 116-118 spaces needed for 149 provided), while Objectors’ expert used the “General Urban/Suburban” category (projecting 163-168 spaces needed). On setbacks, the dispute turned on whether the Developer had to match the build-to lines of adjacent residential properties located in a different zoning district.
The Court’s Holding
President Judge Cohn Jubelirer, writing for the panel, affirmed the Court of Common Pleas’ order in full. On building height, the Court agreed with the lower court that the Ordinance’s plain language required a single calculation for the entire building. An “average” of finished grade means adding all data points and dividing by the total number—yielding one average grade—and there can only be one “highest point” of a flat roof. Developer’s approach of splitting the building into sections artificially reduced the calculated height and was not a reasonable interpretation, particularly because it could be exploited to allow high-rise construction in one wing by reducing another wing. The Court held the language was unambiguous, so no deference was owed to Council’s contrary interpretation, and no construction in favor of the landowner was warranted.
On setbacks, the Court found the Ordinance’s requirement to “match existing adjacent setbacks” was genuinely ambiguous because both Developer’s and Objectors’ interpretations were reasonable—the proposed building could match either the adjacent TC-district property or the adjacent NC-2-district residences, which had different setbacks. Under the well-established rule that ambiguous zoning provisions must be construed in favor of the landowner, the Court upheld Council’s determination. On parking, the Court affirmed Council’s reliance on Developer’s expert, finding the Dense Multi-Use Urban setting was a supportable choice and that Council, as the ultimate fact-finder, was entitled to resolve the competing expert testimony.
Key Takeaways
- Building height under a “flat roof” ordinance must be calculated as a single measurement for the entire building—from the average of all finished-grade data points to the single highest roofline—and cannot be calculated section-by-section to reduce the result.
- Where zoning ordinance language is unambiguous, neither a governing body’s interpretation nor the landowner-favorable construction rule applies; the plain language controls.
- An ambiguous setback provision requiring a developer to “match existing adjacent setbacks” is properly construed in favor of the landowner where the developer can match at least one reasonable adjacent setback.
- Council’s choice between competing parking experts using different ITE settings is a credibility and weight determination entitled to deference on review.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance for developers and municipalities in Pennsylvania’s Town Center zoning districts—and any jurisdiction using similar building-height definitions based on average grade and highest roofline. Developers cannot game height calculations by treating a single building as multiple sections, and municipal bodies that approve such methods risk reversal. The decision also illustrates the practical limits of the landowner-favorable construction rule: it only applies where genuine ambiguity exists, not simply because the developer offers an alternative reading.
For land-use practitioners in the Philadelphia suburbs and beyond, the opinion is also instructive on the deference given to competing expert analyses of parking demand. Council’s latitude to choose between ITE settings is broad, but the choice must be grounded in the factual attributes of the setting. The decision is a useful reference for both objectors and developers navigating the interplay of building height, setback, and parking standards in mixed-use urban redevelopment projects.