Introduction

The case of Robert B. Surrick, Appellant, v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Upper Providence et al. (476 Pa. 182) presents a pivotal moment in Pennsylvania zoning law, particularly concerning the constitutional requirements for zoning ordinances in suburban areas. Robert B. Surrick sought to develop multi-family dwellings on a 16.25-acre tract within Upper Providence Township, which was zoned exclusively for single-family residences. The primary issue at stake was whether the township's zoning ordinance unlawfully excluded multi-family housing, thereby violating constitutional protections related to property rights and due process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court, which had upheld the lower court's denial of Surrick's variance request. The Court held that the zoning ordinance of Upper Providence Township was unconstitutionally exclusionary as it did not allocate a "fair share" of land for the development of multi-family dwellings. Specifically, the ordinance designated only 1.14% of the township's land for such developments, a fraction deemed insufficient given the community's location near Philadelphia and its potential for population growth. Consequently, the Court mandated that the zoning approval for Surrick's land be granted, subject to compliance with existing administrative requirements.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases that have shaped the interpretation of zoning ordinances in Pennsylvania. Notably:

• Willistown Township v. Chesterdale Farms, Inc. (462 Pa. 445): Established the "fair share" principle, asserting that municipalities must allocate sufficient land for multi-family housing to meet regional needs.
• GIRSH APPEAL (437 Pa. 237): Invalidated zoning ordinances that completely excluded apartments, emphasizing the need for zoning laws to accommodate population growth.
• National Land and Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Bd. of Adjustment (419 Pa. 504): Rejected stringent lot size requirements that hindered multi-family residential development.
• CONCORD TOWNSHIP APPEAL (439 Pa. 466): Deemed minimum lot sizes as exclusionary when they significantly limited housing diversity.

These cases collectively underpin the Court's stance against exclusionary zoning, highlighting a judicial trend towards ensuring zoning ordinances are inclusive and reflective of broader community needs.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a substantive due process analysis, evaluating whether the zoning ordinance had a substantial relationship to the public welfare. Central to this analysis was the "fair share" doctrine, which mandates that municipalities participate in meeting regional housing demands. Upper Providence Township's zoning scheme, which allocated only a minimal fraction of land for multi-family dwellings amidst substantial undeveloped land and proximity to urban centers, was found lacking. The Court reasoned that such an exclusionary approach fails to address inevitable population growth and urban-suburban expansion, thereby violating constitutional protections against unreasonable interference with property rights.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the "fair share" principle in zoning practices within Pennsylvania. Municipalities are now obligated to ensure that their zoning ordinances do not disproportionately restrict multi-family housing development, especially in regions poised for growth. This decision is likely to prompt revisions of existing zoning laws to align with constitutional requirements, fostering more inclusive and diverse housing options. Additionally, the ruling sets a precedent for future cases challenging exclusionary zoning practices, potentially leading to broader judicial scrutiny of local zoning ordinances across the state.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantive Due Process: A constitutional principle that ensures laws and regulations do not infringe on fundamental rights without sufficient justification. In zoning, it requires ordinances to have a legitimate connection to public welfare.

Exclusionary Zoning: Zoning laws that effectively prevent certain types of housing, such as multi-family dwellings, thereby limiting housing diversity and potentially contributing to socio-economic segregation.

Fair Share Principle: The legal requirement that municipalities allocate an equitable portion of their zoning-designated land to fulfill regional housing needs, ensuring inclusive development and preventing restrictive practices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision in Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Providence marks a significant affirmation of the "fair share" principle within zoning law. By deeming the township's ordinance unconstitutionally exclusionary, the Court underscored the necessity for municipalities to consider regional housing demands and promote inclusive land-use practices. This judgment not only rectifies the immediate dispute but also sets a robust framework for evaluating future zoning ordinances, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates and the evolving needs of growing communities.