Zoning Boards Cannot Classify FHA Accommodations as Variances

A recent decision of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court of delivers a clear message: when an accommodation under Fair Housing Act (FHA) is shown to be necessary, a zoning hearing board may not categorize the request as a mere variance or impose conditions on the needed accommodation.

In Rockers v. Haverford Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2026 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 48 (Jan. 22, 2026), the Commonwealth Court reversed a ruling handed down by the trial court and directed the zoning hearing board to approve a two‑story addition of a residential property required to meet the disabled child’s needs of the property owners. In doing so, the Commonwealth Court held that the zoning hearing board “capriciously disregarded” unrefuted evidence of the addition’s necessity and that the FHA does not contemplate “conditions” once necessity is established.

The property owners in Rockers resided in Haverford Township with their five children, including G.R., a 6‑year‑old with quadriplegic cerebral palsy and epilepsy, the opinion said.

According to the opinion, G.R. was unable to walk or talk and requires constant monitoring for life‑threatening complications, including seizures and risks of aspiration and suffocation.

To provide safe sleeping arrangements, bathing, and circulation space for current and future needs, the property owners proposed the addition, tied together by an ADA‑compliant corridor, the opinion said. The proposed addition would also enlarge the second‑floor bedroom and bathroom to accommodate G.R.’s equipment.

Their pediatrician supported the governmental application in writing, explaining that G.R. had “complex cognitive and physical disabilities,” must be closely monitored day and night for complications such as aspiration and suffocation, and required specialized sleeping and bathing equipment in larger, navigable spaces, the opinion said.

The opinion also stated that, as G.R. aged, he would be required to rely on additional equipment requiring more space, which is what the addition was specifically designed to provide.

The proposed addition intruded into the side yard setback and extended the front façade within the front yard setback. The family initially filed a zoning variance application to authorize a two‑story, 476‑square‑foot addition and a 40‑square‑foot ADA‑compliant ramp.

In January 2020, the zoning hearing board approved the first floor accommodation, denied the second floor accommodation, and imposed specific conditions limiting the accommodation to the first floor only.

On appeal, the trial court remanded for consideration under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

After remand proceedings, the zoning hearing board issued a supplemental decision in July of 2023 refusing the second floor. The trial court affirmed the zoning hearing board’s determination, prompting the property owners to appeal to the trial court’s ruling to the Commonwealth Court.

On remand, the zoning hearing board made findings minimizing disability‑related necessity and attributing the second‑floor request largely to family growth. The zoning hearing board emphasized the lack of second‑floor room dimensions in the plan and concluded that the larger second‑floor requests were not shown to be necessary to afford G.R. an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the home. The zoning hearing board also suggested that there were “viable alternative plans” that would not require zoning variance relief and could be completed on the first floor alone.

The Commonwealth Court in Rockers rejected this framing as both contrary to the unrefuted record and inconsistent with the FHA. The Commonwealth Court further found that the zoning hearing board capriciously disregarded evidence demonstrating that the proposed second‑floor expansion was necessary for G.R.’s health and enjoyment of the home.

Specifically, the Commonwealth Court in Rockers held that the FHA does not allow municipalities to approve an accommodation “with conditions” that undermine necessity, nor to confine a disabled resident to a single floor of a family home containing multiple floors.

The Commonwealth Court in Rockers went on to explain that the FHA protects the “equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,” and a family’s home includes all floors. In essence, the Commonwealth Court in Rockers felt that limiting G.R. to the first floor would restrict his use and enjoyment of the home.

The FHA makes it unlawful to refuse “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford” a person with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Notably, municipal zoning ordinances are subject to this mandate. The applicant bears the initial burden to show necessity, but the burden then shifts to the governmental body to prove the accommodation’s unreasonableness.

Applying these principles, the Commonwealth Court concluded that the property owners established necessity with medical and functional evidence, while the zoning hearing board failed to meet its burden. Additionally, the Commonwealth Court noted that there was no evidence that granting the second‑floor component would impose an undue burden or otherwise fundamentally alter the township’s zoning regime.

The zoning hearing board was insistent on the “minimum necessary relief” and other variance concepts. However, the Commonwealth Court held that a reasonable accommodation request under the FHA is not a zoning variance and may not be evaluated with zoning variance standards. Rather, the Commonwealth Court explained that any attempt at doing so blatantly contravenes the FHA’s text and purpose. In sum, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that the question is not whether some first‑floor access is possible, but whether the accommodation is necessary to afford G.R. an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the home.

Ultimately, the Commonwealth Court in Rockers reversed the trial court and remanded with explicit instructions that the trial court direct the zoning hearing board to remove its imposed condition and approve the accommodation as submitted. The Commonwealth Court unequivocally rejected the notion that the zoning hearing board could confine G.R.’s use of the home to a single floor or otherwise redesign the interior layout once necessity and reasonableness under the FHA were established. In doing so, the Commonwealth Court reinforced that municipal bodies may not substitute their own preferences or impose scaled‑back alternatives when the statutory criteria for a reasonable accommodation have been met.

Lessons Learned

The Rockers decision offers several important takeaways for municipalities evaluating disability‑related home modifications under the FHA. First and foremost, the Commonwealth Court made clear that once an applicant establishes necessity, the FHA does not permit municipalities to impose conditions that fundamentally reshape or reduce the requested accommodation. Necessity is the governing standard, not a zoning‑style inquiry into the “minimum relief” a zoning hearing board believes is adequate.

The opinion underscores the value of a well‑documented record: unrefuted testimony, medical reports, and physician letters that detail the individual’s functional needs and spatial requirements provide compelling evidence of necessity. The Commonwealth Court in Rockers also emphasized that “use and enjoyment” of a dwelling must be understood holistically. A resident is entitled to access and enjoy all floors of their home, not just a portion of it, and accommodations should be evaluated in that context.

Notably, the Commonwealth Court did more than simply remand, it ordered the municipality to approve the accommodation outright, illustrating the judiciary’s readiness to enforce the FHA where the evidence meets the statutory threshold.

Finally, the decision reaffirms that aesthetic objections or speculative concerns about property values cannot override an individual’s right to a reasonable accommodation. Municipalities must focus solely on the documented needs of the resident and may not substitute their own judgment about what configuration or scale they find acceptable. In the wake of Rockers, zoning hearing boards throughout the commonwealth should anticipate that the FHA’s protective purpose will be vigorously upheld, and should tailor their decision‑making accordingly.