Hummelstown Swim Club v. Borough of Hummelstown
Hummelstown Swim Club v. Borough of Hummelstown - 141 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- Hummelstown Swim Club (Club) owns adjacent Parcel 8 (existing pool/grounds) and Parcel 9 (proposed 7,140 sq ft banquet facility) in Hummelstown Borough (Parcel 9 zoned R-SF; special exception previously granted with conditions).
- The Club's Preliminary/Final Land Development Plan proposed the banquet facility on Parcel 9 and required a 60-foot extension of Kokomo Avenue plus a cul-de-sac partly located in an alleged Borough easement on Parcel 8.
- Borough Council denied the Plan for nine reasons, chiefly: failure to show entire tract boundaries (Parcels 8 & 9), lack of demonstrated rights to extend Kokomo Avenue or to use Parcel 8 easement, noncompliance with SALDO cul-de-sac width/radius and cartway/right-of-way/sidewalk/curb requirements, inadequate street access/traffic safety, failure to dedicate land or provide required dedication statements, and hydrant/utility issues.
- The trial court (no new evidence) affirmed Council, finding substantial evidence supported Council's determination that Plan involved improvements requiring inclusion of both Parcels and compliance with SALDO; the Club appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Council did not abuse its discretion or err as a matter of law; title/dedication issues and SALDO noncompliance justified denial and concerns about emergency access and cul-de-sac sizing were valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proposed road improvements within an easement or public right-of-way constituted "land development" requiring inclusion of entire Parcel 8 in the Plan | Club: Road improvements within an existing/proposed easement are not land development of entire neighboring parcel; only Parcel 9 is being developed | Borough: Proposed turnaround, widening, and other improvements use Parcel 8 and are integral to the development; SALDO and MPC definitions require including Parcel 8 | Held: Borough — Council reasonably treated improvements as onsite land development requiring inclusion of Parcel 8; denial supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Club demonstrated right/ability to extend Kokomo Avenue and whether Borough owned the unopened 60-foot extension or easement | Club: Borough has accepted dedication by ordinance and/or Club can provide required dedications; Section 1724(b) inapplicable because street was opened; deeds/dedication could be provided | Borough: Unpaved/unopened 60-foot extension likely extinguished after 21 years; title/dedication issues unresolved; plan lacks required dedication statements | Held: Borough — reasonable to require resolution of title/dedication before approval; denial for lack of required dedications and unresolved ownership justified |
| Whether Plan complied with SALDO cul-de-sac, cartway, right-of-way, sidewalk/curb, and length standards | Club: Offered alternative turnaround sheets; contends SALDO standards are design minima and many issues could be conditioned; improvements are offsite so not all SALDO requirements apply | Borough: Plan fails to show required 24-ft cartway, 100-ft (or 120-ft per some provisions) right-of-way/turnaround, additional ROW for widening, curbs, sidewalks; cul-de-sac would create dead-end length >800 ft for commercial use; on-site/ingress-egress needs make standards applicable | Held: Borough — Plan failed to meet SALDO size, ROW, cartway, curb/sidewalk, and length requirements; Council reasonably denied plan on these grounds |
| Whether Council acted in bad faith or should have recused president for apparent bias | Club: Council took unreasonable positions, failed to resolve conflicting SALDO guidance, and president’s familial/neighbor ties required recusal | Borough: Council had substantial, objective grounds; solicitor advised no recusal required absent actual bias; no factual finding of bad faith | Held: Borough — no factual basis in record of bad faith or disqualifying bias; denial stands; remedy if any would be remand for further factfinding, not reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Trojnacki v. Bd. of Supervisors of Solesbury Twp., 842 A.2d 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (standard of review for land development appeals where trial court took no additional evidence).
- Valley View Civic Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 637 (Pa. 1983) (definition of substantial evidence and review deference in land use matters).
- CACO Three, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Huntington Twp., 845 A.2d 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (plan that meets objective SALDO requirements must be approved).
- Robal Assocs., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Charlestown Twp., 999 A.2d 630 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (single valid objection can support plan denial).
- Herr v. Lancaster Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 625 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (governing body discretion and deference in subdivision/land development denials).