Friends of Lackawanna v. Dunmore Borough Zoning Hearing Board and Dunmore Borough
186 A.3d 525
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2018Background
- Keystone operates a large, permitted sanitary landfill spanning Dunmore Borough and Throop Borough; it sought a Phase III DEP permit to expand upward on 216 acres, extending the landfill’s height and lifespan.
- Keystone requested a preliminary zoning opinion under the MPC asking whether the Borough Zoning Ordinance’s building-height limits apply to a landfill; the Zoning Officer concluded they did not because a landfill lacks walls/roof.
- Friends of Lackawanna (FOL), a local nonprofit, and three individual residents (May, Mizanty, Spanish) appealed the Zoning Officer’s opinion to the Dunmore Borough Zoning Hearing Board, arguing proximity-based harms (odors, dust, bird droppings, truck traffic) would worsen with the expansion.
- The Board held appellants lacked standing and also affirmed the Zoning Officer on the merits; the trial court dismissed the appeal on standing grounds without reaching the merits.
- This Commonwealth Court panel limited review to standing (Keystone successfully struck portions of the brief addressing merits) and reversed the trial court, holding the individuals had standing and FOL had derivative standing; remanded for merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual residents have standing to appeal the Zoning Officer’s preliminary opinion | Individuals live within ~1/4 to 1/2 mile, can smell/see landfill, suffer odors, dust, bird droppings and truck traffic that will be worsened/extended by expansion | Residents do not abut the landfill, lack pecuniary harm, impacts are aesthetic/nuisance and too remote to be a "substantial, direct and immediate" interest | Held: Individuals have standing—proximity-related odors, dust, bird issues and traffic create substantial, direct and immediate interests beyond a general citizen's interest |
| Whether FOL has organizational or derivative standing to appeal | FOL represents affected members and engages in advocacy; derivative standing exists if at least one member suffers injury | Keystone/Board: FOL has no distinct property/financial interest and was formed solely to oppose the expansion | Held: FOL has derivative standing as representative of its members because members (individual appellants) have standing |
| Whether the 53‑page, 377‑paragraph notice of land use appeal should be dismissed for lack of concision under MPC §1003‑A(a) | Notice includes a clear "Grounds for Appeal" section and factual detail; Pennsylvania is a fact‑pleading jurisdiction; voluminous notice is not grounds for dismissal absent bad faith | Keystone: Notice is deliberately non‑concise and confusing; dismissal is warranted | Held: Trial court correctly declined to dismiss for excess detail; although lengthy, the notice was distillable and not misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 972 A.2d 487 (Pa. 2009) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Robinson Township v. Commonwealth (Robinson II), 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) (association may have derivative standing when a member suffers immediate or threatened injury)
- Pa. Medical Society v. Department of Public Welfare, 39 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2012) (association standing as representative of members)
- Broad Mountain Development Co., LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board, 17 A.3d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (residents within a half‑mile had standing to challenge windfarm permit due to proximity‑based harms)
- Grant v. Zoning Hearing Board of Penn Township, 776 A.2d 356 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (intervenors ~6,600 feet from a generating plant had direct, immediate, pecuniary and substantial interest due to wind and noise impacts)
- Armstead v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 115 A.3d 390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (proximity alone may be insufficient when claimed impacts are akin to generalized aesthetic concerns)
- Laughman v. Zoning Hearing Board of Newberry Township, 964 A.2d 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (definition of a "substantial" interest for standing analysis)