de minimis doctrine in Pennsylvania

2026“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)).

2025“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)).

2026“The determination of whether or not the de minimis doctrine applies requires careful consideration of both of these factors.” Id.

2026“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)).

2016See Rollins Outdoor Adver[.] (quoting Cook v. Zoning Hearing B[d.] of Ridley T[wp.], 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 160 , 408 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa.Cmwlth.1979)) (‘[I]t is difficult to conceive of a use variance which would be truly ‘[de minimis ].’ ’)• This is because ‘the effect on the public interest of a use variance usually is greater than the effect of a variance necessitated by only a minor deviation from a dimensional requirement.’ Evans v. Zoning Hearing B[d.], 732 A.2d 686 , 691 n. 4 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (citing Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh B[d.] of Adjustment, 437 Pa. 481 , 263 A.2d 426, 431 (1970)).... ... [

2016See Rollins Outdoor Adver[.] (quoting Cook v. Zoning Hearing B[d.] of Ridley T[wp.], 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 160 , 408 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa.Cmwlth.1979)) (‘[I]t is difficult to conceive of a use variance which would be truly ‘[de minimis ].’ ’)• This is because ‘the effect on the public interest of a use variance usually is greater than the effect of a variance necessitated by only a minor deviation from a dimensional requirement.’ Evans v. Zoning Hearing B[d.], 732 A.2d 686 , 691 n. 4 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (citing Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh B[d.] of Adjustment, 437 Pa. 481 , 263 A.2d 426, 431 (1970)).... ... [

2021“The determination of whether or not the de minimis doctrine applies requires careful consideration of both of these factors.” Pequea Twp., 180 A.3d at 504 .

2019“Where the de minimis doctrine applies, there is no need to resort to any other theory of relief.” Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Pequea Twp., 180 A.3d 500, 504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

2026Nettleton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 828 A.2d 1033, 1038 (Pa. 2003).

2025Nettleton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 828 A.2d 1033, 1038 (Pa. 2003). 7 In actuality, Section 27-747 of the Zoning Ordinance does not require a 15-foot buffer of Landowner’s expanded recreation area because the school is not adjacent to residential structures or zones; rather, it is adjacent to an industrial zone. 14 In West Bradford Township v. Evans, 384 A.2d 1382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978), the landowners sought to subdivide a 0.847-acre lot into two smaller lots of 0.5 acres and 0.347 acres, respectively.

2018However, in applying the de minimis doctrine, "we must be mindful that zoning boards and courts function, inter alia , to enforce zoning ordinances in accordance with applicable law; not to impose their concepts of what the ordinance ought to be." Leonard v. Zoning Hearing Board of City of Bethlehem , 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 182 , 583 A.2d 11 , 13 (1990) ; see also Dunn v. Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board , 143 A.3d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

2018However, in applying the de minimis doctrine, "we must be mindful that zoning boards and courts function, inter alia , to enforce zoning ordinances in accordance with applicable law; not to impose their concepts of what the ordinance ought to be." Leonard v. Zoning Hearing Board of City of Bethlehem , 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 182 , 583 A.2d 11 , 13 (1990) ; see also Dunn v. Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board , 143 A.3d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

2002This de minimis exception "applies where only a minor deviation from the zoning ordinance is sought and rigid compliance is not necessary to protect the public policy concerns inherent in the ordinance." Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1992).

2002This de minimis exception "applies where only a minor deviation from the zoning ordinance is sought and rigid compliance is not necessary to protect the public policy concerns inherent in the ordinance." Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1992).

2022Zoning Hearing Bd., 143 A.3d 494, 506 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

2018However, in applying the de minimis doctrine, "we must be mindful that zoning boards and courts function, inter alia , to enforce zoning ordinances in accordance with applicable law; not to impose their concepts of what the ordinance ought to be." Leonard v. Zoning Hearing Board of City of Bethlehem , 136 Pa.Cmwlth. 182 , 583 A.2d 11 , 13 (1990) ; see also Dunn v. Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board , 143 A.3d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

2021See Hairston, supra. Additionally, the Commonwealth correctly notes that once the court granted Williams’ demurrer as to the conspiracy charge, the importance of Olexovitch’s testimony regarding the remaining charges was greatly minimized—the manner in which Williams acquired the weapon had little significance in answering the question of whether he murdered Ballard and McDuffie and whether he intended to kill Wilson.

2021See Hairston, supra. Additionally, the Commonwealth correctly notes that once the court granted Williams’ demurrer as to the conspiracy charge, the importance of Olexovitch’s testimony regarding the remaining charges was greatly minimized—the manner in which Williams acquired the weapon had little significance in answering the question of whether he murdered Ballard and McDuffie and whether he intended to kill Wilson.

2026“There are no set criteria for determining what will be considered de minimis.” Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pequea Township, 180 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (quoting Hawk v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment, 38 A.3d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)). “[T]he decision of whether to grant a de minimis variance is left to the discretion of the local zoning board.” Pequea Township, 180 A.3d at 505 (quoting Alpine, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board, 654 A.2d 186, 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)).

2025“There are no set criteria for determining what will be considered de minimis.” Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pequea Township, 180 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (quoting Hawk v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment, 38 A.3d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)). “[T]he decision of whether to grant a de minimis variance is left to the discretion of the local zoning board.” Pequea Township, 180 A.3d at 505 (quoting Alpine, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board, 654 A.2d 186, 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)).

2026“There are no set criteria for determining what will be considered de minimis.” Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pequea Township, 180 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (quoting Hawk v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment, 38 A.3d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)). “[T]he decision of whether to grant a de minimis variance is left to the discretion of the local zoning board.” Pequea Township, 180 A.3d at 505 (quoting Alpine, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board, 654 A.2d 186, 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)).

2025“There are no set criteria for determining what will be considered de minimis.” Pequea Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of Pequea Township, 180 A.3d 500, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (quoting Hawk v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment, 38 A.3d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)). “[T]he decision of whether to grant a de minimis variance is left to the discretion of the local zoning board.” Pequea Township, 180 A.3d at 505 (quoting Alpine, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board, 654 A.2d 186, 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)).

2016See Rollins Outdoor Adver[.] (quoting Cook v. Zoning Hearing B[d.] of Ridley T[wp.], 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 160 , 408 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa.Cmwlth.1979)) (‘[I]t is difficult to conceive of a use variance which would be truly ‘[de minimis ].’ ’)• This is because ‘the effect on the public interest of a use variance usually is greater than the effect of a variance necessitated by only a minor deviation from a dimensional requirement.’ Evans v. Zoning Hearing B[d.], 732 A.2d 686 , 691 n. 4 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (citing Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh B[d.] of Adjustment, 437 Pa. 481 , 263 A.2d 426, 431 (1970)).... ... [

1987Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh Board of Adjustment, 437 Pa. 481 , 263 A.2d 426 (1970) (de minimis exception for a 7/10 foot side yard variance), Marlowe v. Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 224 , 415 A.2d 946 (1980) (seven requests for variances to build a shopping center granted under the de minimis principle).

2016See Rollins Outdoor Adver[.] (quoting Cook v. Zoning Hearing B[d.] of Ridley T[wp.], 47 Pa.Cmwlth. 160 , 408 A.2d 1157, 1159 (Pa.Cmwlth.1979)) (‘[I]t is difficult to conceive of a use variance which would be truly ‘[de minimis ].’ ’)• This is because ‘the effect on the public interest of a use variance usually is greater than the effect of a variance necessitated by only a minor deviation from a dimensional requirement.’ Evans v. Zoning Hearing B[d.], 732 A.2d 686 , 691 n. 4 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (citing Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh B[d.] of Adjustment, 437 Pa. 481 , 263 A.2d 426, 431 (1970)).... ... [

1987Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh Board of Adjustment, 437 Pa. 481 , 263 A.2d 426 (1970) (de minimis exception for a 7/10 foot side yard variance), Marlowe v. Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 224 , 415 A.2d 946 (1980) (seven requests for variances to build a shopping center granted under the de minimis principle).

2024The theory underlying the skepticism in applying the de minimis doctrine to use variances is that “the effect of a use variance on the public interest is greater than the effect of a minor deviation from a dimensional requirement.” Coyle, 135 A.3d at 245 .10 However, this is not necessarily always the case, and we believe the present case proves the point. 10 Another reason our Court may have hesitated to delve into the issue of de minimis use variances may be the difficulty in measuring degrees of difference, a problem not attendant to dimensional variances.

2020Coyle, 135 A.3d at 246 (internal citations omitted). 15 whether this evidence meets the standards for variance relief, we leave that determination to the trial court.

1998Chichester Area School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa.Cmwlth. 74 , 415 A.2d 997 (1980) (stating that the adoption of a de minimis rule would undermine the clarity and relative predictability of the Vrotney/Philco test).

1998Chichester Area School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa.Cmwlth. 74 , 415 A.2d 997 (1980) (stating that the adoption of a de minimis rule would undermine the clarity and relative predictability of the Vrotney/Philco test).

2025See Commonwealth v. Williams, 579 A.2d 869, 871 (Pa. 1990) (noting, after holding statute prohibiting smuggling of contraband into correctional institutions applied, even though visitor at issue had no intent to deliver contraband to confined persons, that “in an appropriate case the defense of a de minimis infraction might be asserted in effort to obtain dismissal of the criminal charge”) (emphasis added; formatting altered); Commonwealth v. - 11 - J-S15038-25 Cordoba, 902 A.2d 1280 , 1286 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[a]n HIV-positive defendant facing prosecution for violation of a criminal statu

2025See Commonwealth v. Williams, 579 A.2d 869, 871 (Pa. 1990) (noting, after holding statute prohibiting smuggling of contraband into correctional institutions applied, even though visitor at issue had no intent to deliver contraband to confined persons, that “in an appropriate case the defense of a de minimis infraction might be asserted in effort to obtain dismissal of the criminal charge”) (emphasis added; formatting altered); Commonwealth v. - 11 - J-S15038-25 Cordoba, 902 A.2d 1280 , 1286 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[a]n HIV-positive defendant facing prosecution for violation of a criminal statu

2023See id. at 13-14. -8- J-S21023-23 “We review a trial court’s refusal to dismiss an infraction as de minimis for an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Toomer, 159 A.3d 956, 959 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations omitted).

2021In re Amazon.com, Inc., Fulfillment Center Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Wage & Hour Litigation, 942 F.3d 297 , 301 (6th Cir. 2019).

2021In re Amazon.com, Inc., 942 F.3d at 304.

2021Anderson, 328 U.S. at 692-93 (citations omitted).

2021To be sure, Anderson included “putting on aprons and overalls” and “removing shirts” as activities to which “it is appropriate to apply a de minimis doctrine.” Id. at 692–693, 66 S.Ct. 1187 .