HYK Construction Co. v. Smithfield Township
8 A.3d 1009
Pa. Commw. Ct.2010Background
- HYK filed a conditional use application with Smithfield Township to build a concrete facility in 2007; hearings before the Board began in June 2007 with EAC granted party status alongside ~75 neighbors.
- HYK sought declaratory and equitable relief in 2008 claiming EAC’s funding of evidence and testimony rendered the hearings biased and seeking appointment of a neutral hearing examiner and exclusion of EAC as a party.
- A 2008 stipulation guided that if subject-matter jurisdiction existed, the CU matter would be heard by an independent examiner and EAC’s participation limited to witness presentation.
- In November 2008 the trial court found subject-matter jurisdiction but barred EAC from formally participating; it ordered an independent arbitrator to conduct the CU hearings and issue a final decision.
- HYK and Appellants subsequently challenged the trial court’s rulings; the trial court’s 2009 post-trial denials led to this appeal, and the court ultimately vacated and remanded.
- Appellants contend HYK failed to join indispensable parties and exhaust the MPC’s exclusive statutory remedy; HYK contends due process requires removal of bias through equity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joinder as indispensable parties | HYK argues neighbors are indispensable under the DJA and should be joined. | Township/EAC contend joinder not required; neighbors’ interests are not essential to the declaratory judgment. | Neighbors are indispensable; failure to join requires dismissal. |
| Indispensable party and equity | HYK asserts the underlying CU participants are indispensable in an equity challenge to the CU proceedings. | Board/EAC argue equity not proper where statutory remedy exists and proceedings are ongoing before the Board. | Indispensable party existence controls; equity cannot substitute for exclusive MPC remedy. |
| Judicial notice and extrarecord findings | HYK claims trial court relied on matters not in record and took improper judicial notice of disputed facts. | Board/EAC defend court’s findings as proper exercise of discretion. | Judicial notice and extrarecord findings improper; record-only evidence required. |
| Equity jurisdiction vs. MPC exclusivity | HYK contends equity is necessary to cure due process concerns regarding bias. | Equity must yield to the MPC’s exclusive review provisions and adequate statutory remedy. | Equity jurisdiction improperly exercised; MPC exclusive remedy controls. |
| EAC party status | HYK argues EAC’s party status creates bias and warrants removal from CU hearings. | HYK acknowledges EAC could be remedied by removal, and no per se bias shown. | EAC’s status as party litigant improper; remedy is to remand, not undermine statutory process. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (2003) (joinder in declaratory judgments mandatory; rights affected by declaration)
- Horn v. Township of Hilltown, 461 Pa. 745, 337 A.2d 858 (1975) (appearance of bias violates due process)
- Newtown Township Board of Supervisors v. Greater Media Radio Co., 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 157, 587 A.2d 841 (1991) (avoidance of impropriety when solicitor acts adversarially before board)
- Prin v. Council of Municipality of Monroeville, 165 Pa.Cmwlth. 519, 645 A.2d 450 (1994) (remand when bias exists; tribunal must be impartial)
- Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa.535, 605 A.2d 1204 (1992) (appearance of bias requires separation of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions)
- Stone v. Department of Environmental Resources, 636 A.2d 297 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (walls of division between prosecutorial and adjudicative functions)
- DeLuca v. Buckeye Coal Company, 463 Pa. 513, 345 A.2d 637 (1975) (exclusive statutory remedy limits equity jurisdiction)
- Caserta v. Milford Township, 35 Pa.Cmwlth. 598, 387 A.2d 495 (1978) (limited exception to exclusivity when remedy inadequate)
- Borough of Green Tree v. Board of Property Assessments, Appeals and Review, 459 Pa. 268, 328 A.2d 819 (1974) (due process and equity limits in absence of adequate legal remedy)
- Crandell v. Pennsbury Township Board of Supervisors, Pa.Cmwlth. 2009 (2009) (interlocutory posture and joinder considerations)