Com. (Borough of Palmyra) v. R.U. Brandt
Com. (Borough of Palmyra) v. R.U. Brandt - 866 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 25, 2017Background
- Raymond Brandt owned a multi‑family property with a gravel rear yard in Palmyra; Borough Code Enforcement Officer Jackie Wilbern repeatedly cited him for "stacks of debris and miscellaneous materials" and an "accumulation of tires."
- Multiple citations were issued (one case SA‑79 and four related citations at SA‑93); Brandt was convicted/pleaded guilty at the magisterial level and appealed for a de novo trial in the Court of Common Pleas.
- At trial Wilbern and neighbor Ernest Woolever testified the yard was cluttered with doors, windows, tires, machinery, saw horses, piles of stone, and other debris; Wilbern took photographs over time showing the recurring clutter.
- Brandt admitted he used the yard for his construction business, that items were used in his work, and that items came and went, but conceded he did not clean up the yard or have a permit to run a business there.
- The trial court found Brandt guilty on all five citations and imposed fines; on appeal Brandt challenged (1) the ordinance’s phrase "clean, safe and sanitary" as unconstitutionally vague and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brandt) | Defendant's Argument (Borough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of ordinance §302.1 ("clean, safe and sanitary") | Phrase is vague/subjective, invites arbitrary enforcement; Wilbern offered only conclusory opinions | Terms have ordinary meaning, are informed by related ordinance provisions and dictionary definitions | Not vague as applied; terms can be reasonably understood and measured against related code sections and facts |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under §302.1 | Photographs/dates and citations mismatch; items were business materials with utility; condition varied over time | Testimony plus photos show recurring accumulation and heaps of refuse/debris; business-use does not excuse noncompliance | Evidence sufficient: testimonial and photographic evidence supported guilty findings beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Jurisdictional challenge to appeal (failure to list all case numbers) | N/A (Brandt listed only SA‑79) | Consolidation and common issues show intent to appeal all convictions; no prejudice to Borough | Court has jurisdiction to review both consolidated case numbers |
| Notice specificity in citations | Citations lacked particularity; Brandt lacked precise directions to cure | Initial notice described "stacks of debris" and "accumulation of tires"; general condition remained the same so notice was adequate | Any defect was not shown to have caused prejudice; claim waived or meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2003) (allowing appellate review of unspecified orders when connected and opposing party not prejudiced)
- Commonwealth v. Duda, 923 A.2d 1138 (Pa. 2007) (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine for penal statutes)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (standing limits for vagueness challenges and need to show vagueness as applied)
- City of Minneapolis v. Reha, 483 N.W.2d 688 (Minn. 1992) (ordinance requiring premises to be "clean and sanitary" upheld as understandable by ordinary people)
- Commonwealth v. Ebaugh, 783 A.2d 846 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (upholding noise ordinance using objective reasonable‑person standard)
- Borough of Walnutport v. Dennis, 114 A.3d 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (standards for notice and sufficiency in summary ordinance prosecutions)