PA Appeals Court Holds Doctrine of Unclean Hands Did Not Apply to Objectors’ Statutory Challenge to Zoning Board Variance Decision

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

In this case, Arthur Plaxton and Elke Plaxton appealed, pro se, from the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court’s order denying their appeal and affirming the City of Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment’s decision granting 1903 Spring Garden Associates, LP a use variance to park four vehicles in the rear yard of its property and a dimensional variance from the Philadelphia Zoning Code’s landscaping requirements.

On appeal, the Plaxtons first contended that the trial court erred by dismissing their appeal for lack of standing, claiming that the subject property’s close proximity to their property, and the record testimony alleging visual impacts, trespass onto their property, and potential damage to their building, constituted sufficient evidence of aggrievement. The record reflected that the Plaxtons’ property was a five-apartment building “directly across from the rear of Applicant’s Property on the other side of Monterey Street.” As such, the court found that the subject property’s close proximity to the Plaxtons’ property, coupled with the Plaxtons’ testimony, established the Plaxtons’ standing as aggrieved parties. Accordingly, the trial court erred by dismissing the Plaxtons’ appeal for lack of standing.

Next, the Plaxtons alleged that the trial court erroneously applied the unclean hands doctrine. Here, the Plaxtons filed a statutory appeal. Since the instant appeal was not an equity action, and the legislature established a statutory remedy, the court found the equitable unclean hands doctrine could not be used to bar the Plaxton from challenging the variances. Accordingly, the trial court erred by dismissing the Plaxtons’ appeal on that basis. The trial court’s order was therefore reversed and the matter was remanded to the trial court.

Plaxton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 213 A.3d 374 (PA Commnwlth 2019)