HARRISBURG – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has reversed the findings of a Delaware County judiciary, finding that Villanova University is not entitled to construct a seasonal dome to cover a soccer field on its campus.
This matter stems from Villanova’s plan to install an air-supported seasonal dome to enclose an existing soccer field on its west campus in Radnor Township, located in Delaware County. The dome was to be erected yearly from November 1 to April 1, when weather does not permit outdoor athletic practice.
Originally, the Radnor Township Zoning Hearing Board denied both Villanova’s appeal of the determination of the Radnor Township Zoning Officer with respect to the ability of Villanova to build the dome by right, and Villanova’s requested alternative relief of a variance.
But the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas issued a reversal, finding that Villanova could in fact build the dome by right and, alternatively, was also entitled to a variance. The court directed the Zoning Officer to issue a building permit.
However, Radnor Township then appealed that decision to the Commonwealth Court.
“On appeal to this Court, the Township argues both that the ZHB correctly determined that the dome would violate the Section 280-69.C height regulations (number of stories and linear feet) and that Villanova is not entitled to a variance because it did not establish a hardship within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, because the variance will alter the neighborhood and because it was not shown that the relief requested was the minimum variance necessary to use the property,” said Commonwealth Court Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter.
The Commonwealth Court disagreed with the trial court’s findings as to Villanova’s perceived hardship, saying the school did not prove such a detriment.
“The detriment shown in this case is that because Villanova lacks sufficient indoor sports practice space, it is hindered in competing for student athletes. It must rent indoor sports practice space off campus during the winter months or, presumably, build a new indoor practice facility which complies with the ordinance requirements. While these concerns were found by the ZHB to constitute some hardship, it is clear that whatever hardship exists pertains to Villanova as an institution and does not arise due to the unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property,” Leadbetter stated.
Leadbetter and colleague Commonwealth Court judges P. Kevin Brobson and Ellen Ceisler concluded the trial court’s findings were in error.
“The findings in the present case do not establish that the field is not usable in its current state, without the dome. Indeed, Villanova intends to continue to use the field without the dome every year from April 2 to October 31 even if it was granted the relief sought. In other words, Villanova has a viable use of its property, just not its preferred use,” Leadbetter said.
“As an unnecessary hardship, even of the type required for a dimensional variance, has not been shown, we need not address the issues of whether the variance requested is the minimum necessary to provide relief or whether the public interest would be harmed by the grant of the variance. In light of the foregoing, the order of the trial court is reversed.”
Commonwealth Court Of Pennsylvania case 157 C.D. 2019
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com