DeSantis v. Zoning Hearing Board
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 267
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Landowners appeal a trial court order affirming variances for a City police substation on a leased IT Institutional District lot.
- Substation is an enclosed trailer housing a computer for a nearby security camera; project requires multiple dimensional variances under zoning.
- Lot measures 35' by 108' (3,780 square feet); IT District requires minimum 21,780 sq ft and yard setbacks (front 50', rear 40', side 15' each).
- Board deemed approval after failing to issue a timely decision; Landowners challenged alleged conflicts of interest and requested proper review.
- Trial court remanded to Board to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Board granted the variances and did not address conflicts or character impact.
- Court holds the trial court should have conducted de novo review of the deemed approval and that Board findings are null; case remanded for de novo proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the trial court conduct de novo review of a deemed approval? | Landowners: de novo review required; Board findings invalid. | City: appellate review permitted from Board record; de novo not required. | De novo review required; trial court's appellate remand was error. |
| Does a deemed approval nullify the board's findings and require new fact-finding by the trial court? | Landowners contend findings cannot stand after deemed approval. | City contends findings valid for review. | Findings are nullified; trial court must make its own findings on de novo review. |
| Did the Board possess authority to act in lieu of the trial court on a deemed approval? | Landowners argue Board lacked authority to decide under deemed approval. | City relies on Board's approved findings to support variances. | Board action cannot substitute for trial court under deemed approval; remand for de novo review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gryshuk v. Kolb, 685 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth.1996) (where board misses timely decision, trial court must make its own findings; deemed approval defects require de novo review)
- Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Clarks Summit Borough/Clarks Summit Borough Council, 958 A.2d 587 (Pa. Cmwlth.2008) (reiterates that when deemed approval occurs, board findings are nullified and trial court must make its own findings)
- In re Borough of Jenkintown v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Abington Twp., 858 A.2d 136 (Pa. Cmwlth.2004) (scope of review for deemed approvals cannot be waived; standard of review is review of the record plus de novo where appropriate)