Hetley Associates v. Lemoyne Borough Zoning Hearing Board: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Rejects Strip-Center Owner's Use Variance for Overflow Parking on Adjacent Residential Lots

Zoning & Land Use Ruling Issued
Date
October 9, 2026
Added to tracker
October 13, 2026
Court or forum
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
State
Pennsylvania
Presiding judge
Christine Fizzano Cannon
Property type
Retail
Amount / scale
Use variance to demolish three houses and build a parking lot (no dollar figure at stake)
Parties
Appellant: Hetley AssociatesAppellee: Lemoyne Borough Zoning Hearing Board

On October 9, 2026, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of a use variance sought by Hetley Associates, owner of the Hetley Plaza strip shopping center in Lemoyne Borough. The owner wanted to demolish three houses it owns in the borough's Urban Residential District and replace them with parking for the center, which has fewer spaces than its commercial zoning requires. The court held that the claimed hardship belonged to the separate commercial parcel and to the owner, not to the residential lots that needed the variance. That failure alone defeated the request.

Why it matters

Retail owners often try to fix nonconforming parking by buying neighboring residential parcels. This ruling confirms that in Pennsylvania a use variance must rest on a hardship unique to the parcel being rezoned, not on the business needs of an adjoining commercial site under the same ownership. Owners and buyers of parking-deficient centers should not count on a variance to add capacity on residential land next door. The opinion is non-precedential, and its footnote expressly declines to decide whether consolidating the lots through a reverse subdivision would change the analysis.

Original source ↗
Weekly email

New on CREdocket, every Monday

The week's new commercial real estate lawsuits, rulings in cases we follow, and market signals. Free; unsubscribe in one click.

Hetley Associates owns Hetley Plaza, a strip shopping center in Lemoyne Borough, Cumberland County, zoned Commercial General. It also owns three nearby residential lots in the borough's Urban Residential District, one of them a rented house. The center operates as a lawful nonconforming use with fewer parking spaces than the ordinance now requires. The owner argued that changing conditions around the plaza had made the shortage worse, and that a vacant space once occupied by a restaurant was hard to re-lease without more parking.

Case timeline · 4 entries Latest: October 9, 2026 — Commonwealth Court affirms: hardship belongs to the commercial plaza, not the residential lots

Free · no account needed

Keep reading

Read the full write-up and case timeline. Up to 10 a month are free without an account; a free account is unlimited and adds email alerts.

Read the full write-up

Or create a free account with just your email:

Alerts

Get an email when new zoning & land use matters in Pennsylvania are filed

Case Value Calculator · Beta

What's this Zoning & Land Use case worth?

Describe your own facts and get a damages-range estimate grounded in real cited case law.

Try the calculator
Share LinkedIn Email

More zoning & land use matters

Other matters in Pennsylvania

Recently added

CREdocket summarizes public court records and reporting; see our sourcing standards and corrections log. Not legal advice. Facing something similar? Contact us.