Allegheny Tower Associates, LLC v. City of Scranton Zoning Hearing Board
152 A.3d 1118
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Allegheny Tower Associates sought a special-exception to replace a 120-foot guyed tower with a 140-foot monopole on property zoned Light Industrial (I-L) in Scranton.
- Applicant presented testimony that the proposed tower complied with setback, screening, FCC rules, would not be lit, and would not increase impervious surface or flooding. Applicant had extensive tower-construction experience.
- Two nearby residents/objectors testified the larger tower would be unsightly, could reduce property values, and might fall onto an adjacent gas station; concerns were largely speculative.
- The Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) split 2–2 and therefore issued a deemed denial, citing Section 118(C)(4)(e) of the ordinance (no significant negative effect on an existing residential neighborhood).
- The trial court affirmed the ZHB on substantial-evidence grounds without taking new evidence. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the ZHB abused discretion or erred as a matter of law in denying the special exception based on objector testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Applicant met its burden to obtain special-exception approval | Applicant showed compliance with objective ordinance criteria, creating a presumption in its favor; objectors failed to produce credible evidence of a general detrimental effect | ZHB said the only question was whether the tower would "significantly negatively affect" nearby residential character; objectors’ testimony supported that finding | Held for Applicant: objectors bore burden to prove general detrimental effects and their testimony was speculative and insufficient; ZHB erred in denying the special exception |
| Who bears burden on neighborhood-impact criterion (Section 118(C)(4)(e)) | Applicant: once objective criteria are met, burden shifts to objectors to prove detriment | ZHB: addressed only the neighborhood-impact question as fact question for the board | Held: Where ordinance does not place burden on applicant, objectors have both duty and burden to prove general detrimental effects; ZHB wrongly relied on speculative testimony |
| Whether aesthetic/property-value concerns suffice to deny special exception | Applicant: aesthetics and speculative value loss are insufficient; must prove high probability of adverse impacts beyond normal | ZHB/objectors: aesthetics, potential property-value decline and safety concerns justified denial | Held: Aesthetic concerns and speculative property-value loss are not enough; protestants must show substantial, probable adverse impacts |
| Whether testimony about tower collapse or flooding created substantial evidence to support denial | Applicant: testimony was speculative and contradicted by Applicant’s construction experience and lack of increased impervious surface | ZHB: relied on neighbors’ safety and flooding concerns | Held: Objectors presented only speculation; Applicant’s uncontested technical testimony undercut collapse/flooding fears; insufficient to support denial |
Key Cases Cited
- MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Res., LLC v. Cecil Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 102 A.3d 549 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (burden-shifting framework for special exceptions)
- Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (delineation of duty and burden for specific vs. general detrimental effects)
- Marquise Investment, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (applicant need only prove compliance with specific objective criteria)
- Oasis v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of S. Annville Twp., 94 A.3d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (speculation insufficient to prove general detrimental effects)
- Coble Constr. Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of East Stroudsburg, 329 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (aesthetics and possible property-value decline alone cannot establish harm to public welfare)
- Greth Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of L. Heidelberg Twp., 918 A.2d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (special exception as uses contemplated by ordinance; presumption of consistency with public welfare)