Gravel Hill Enterprises, Inc. v. Lower Mount Bethel Township Zoning Hearing Board
172 A.3d 754
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Gravel Hill Enterprises bought a 126-acre property with ~55.6 acres of stump/wood-waste (some hazardous) and applied for a zoning variance to operate a stump shredder/grinder; the parcel sits in an Agricultural Zoning District where the use is not permitted.
- Previous owner had DEP consent order (1999) requiring cessation of dumping/burning and staged debris removal; prior variance had been vacated but operations continued, causing fires and neighbor complaints.
- Zoning Hearing Board denied Gravel Hill’s variance after three hearings; Gravel Hill appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and the Township intervened in the appeal proceedings.
- While appeal was pending, Gravel Hill and the Township negotiated a settlement agreement; nearby resident-intervenors sought to intervene in the trial-court appeal and entered a stipulation that allowed the court to approve or reject any settlement despite intervenors’ objections.
- The Township approved the settlement at public meetings; the trial court approved and adopted the settlement by order; intervenors appealed asserting (inter alia) lack of jurisdiction over out-of-township parcels, due process defects, failure to require cleanup, and improper authorization of post-approval amendments.
Issues
| Issue | Intervenors' Argument | Township/Gravel Hill Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intervenors waived right to appeal by stipulation | Stipulation did not mention appeal waiver; constitutional right to appeal cannot be presumed waived | Stipulation gave court authority and bound parties to the court’s decision | No waiver; stipulation did not expressly waive appeal rights so appeal allowed |
| Whether intervenors were denied due process | Settlement process shifted burden to intervenors and limited participation | Intervenors had ample notice, multiple public hearings, written submissions, and oral argument per stipulation | No due process violation; intervenors had full opportunity to be heard |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to approve settlement terms affecting land not in original ZHB appeal | Trial court approval improperly extended to parcels not at issue; BPG prohibits expanding review beyond matters decided by municipal body and notice of appeal | Township says adjacent- parcel concessions were at intervenors’ request and landowner voluntary covenants are permissible | Trial court abused discretion insofar as settlement incorporated land not subject to underlying litigation; that portion reversed |
| Whether settlement improperly allowed post-approval modifications without court oversight | Settlement would permit amendment without judicial review, undermining intervenors’ protections | Settlement requires written modifications and Township public-approval process where intervenors may comment | Trial court did not abuse discretion on this point; modification procedure included public approval and opportunity to be heard |
Key Cases Cited
- East Norriton Township v. Gill Quarries, 604 A.2d 763 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (stipulations are binding and interpreted like contracts but do not imply waivers beyond express terms)
- Cobbs v. Allied Chemical Corp., 661 A.2d 1375 (Pa. Super. 1995) (court will not extend stipulation language by implication; construe narrowly)
- McShain v. General State Authority, 307 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (stipulation interpretation requires giving effect to every part if reasonable meaning exists)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (discusses burden-shifting analysis in product-liability context)
- BPG Real Estate Investors–Straw Party II, L.P. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Newtown Township, 990 A.2d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (trial court authority in land-use appeals is limited to matters decided by municipal body and described in the notice of appeal)