All State Signz Company v. Burgettstown Borough
154 A.3d 416
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- All State Signz contracted to erect three billboards in Burgettstown Borough and submitted its own permit applications at the Borough Council meeting on September 9, 2013.
- Borough personnel allegedly told All State’s attorney there was no separate Zoning Officer or Zoning Hearing Board and that Council would act in that capacity; Borough later produced evidence of a Zoning Hearing Board.
- Borough Council did not act on the applications; more than 180 days passed before All State filed a mandamus action alleging the applications were deemed approved by operation of law.
- Borough moved for summary judgment arguing (1) All State lacked a clear legal right because the Borough’s zoning ordinance (Section 213) forbids off‑premises billboards, (2) All State applied to the wrong entity, and (3) All State effectively raised a validity challenge to the ordinance.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Borough, finding no clear right to relief and that All State’s complaint raised a validity challenge to the zoning ordinance.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, concluding genuine issues of material fact existed (existence/role of Zoning Hearing Board, whether applications were accepted/heard) and that a merits/validity inquiry is irrelevant to a deemed‑approval mandamus claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel issuance of permits after denial of statutory decision deadline (deemed approval under MPC §908(9)) | All State: Council’s inaction triggered deemed approvals and mandamus to compel issuance | Borough: No clear right because Section 213 prohibits off‑premises billboards; applications might be jurisdictionally misfiled | Held: Deemed‑approval analysis focuses on municipality’s inaction; merits/prohibition in ordinance is irrelevant to whether deemed approval occurred |
| Whether there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment | All State: Disputes exist about whether Council acted as Zoning Hearing Board, whether applications were accepted/heard | Borough: Submitted affidavit and zoning code indicating existence of a Zoning Hearing Board and that Council did not accept or hear the applications | Held: Genuine factual disputes exist (existence/role of Zoning Hearing Board; acceptance/hearing of applications); summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether the mandamus complaint improperly raised a validity challenge to the zoning ordinance, barring mandamus | Borough: Complaint’s reference to Section 213 shows All State sought to invalidate the ordinance, which cannot be done via mandamus | All State: Did not mount a formal validity challenge; quoted the ordinance but sought relief based on deemed approval | Held: Complaint did not constitute a validity challenge; mandamus cannot be used to attack validity, but that is not what All State pleaded |
| Whether mispleading or citing the wrong statute defeats mandamus relief | Borough: All State cited the Construction Code Act, not applicable; argues pleading defect undermines claim | All State: Pennsylvania is fact‑pleading; courts know the law and will consider the pleaded facts under correct statute | Held: Citation to an incorrect statute alone does not bar relief where facts support the claim; court takes judicial notice of applicable law |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibraltar Rock, Inc. v. New Hanover Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 68 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (municipal inaction can produce deemed approvals and mandamus to compel issuance)
- Monroeville v. Foltz, 290 A.2d 269 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972) (policy rationale for deemed decisions to prevent municipal delay)
- In re Bedow, 848 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (elements and limits of mandamus as an extraordinary writ)
- Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Clarks Summit Borough/Clark Summit Borough Council, 958 A.2d 587 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (time limits protect applicants from dilatory municipal conduct)
- J.B. Steven, Inc. v. Council of Borough of Edgewood, 658 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (mandamus not available to establish rights by challenging ordinance validity)
- Flood v. Silfies, 933 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (summary judgment standard; view record in light most favorable to nonmoving party)