In Re: Appeal of AMA/American Marketing Association, Inc. from the Decision of the Borough Council of Ambler Borough, dated October 15, 2013
142 A.3d 923
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Maple Avenue Park Partners (Applicant) proposed Ambler Crossings, a TOD apartment complex in Ambler Borough's RO Redevelopment Overlay district; AMA/American Marketing Association (Objector) owns adjacent property.
- Applicant filed concurrent conditional use and preliminary/final land development applications; Council held a hearing, then approved both applications. Objector appealed.
- Central factual dispute: a 1989 Declaration/Nicolet subdivision created a hand‑drawn private easement/private driveways that Objector says Applicant omitted from its plans and that the development would impair.
- Council and Applicant argued the easement is a private/title matter (not a zoning/land‑development determination) and that Applicant either provided adequate notice of the easement at the hearing or could accommodate required access; Applicant's engineer testified the easement lacked metes and bounds and could not be precisely plotted.
- The trial court affirmed Council without taking new evidence; Commonwealth Court reviewed whether Council erred as a matter of law or abused discretion, and whether Objector’s appeals were frivolous (sought fees/delay damages). Court affirmed approvals and denied fee/delay award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Objector) | Defendant's Argument (Applicant / Council) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Council improperly approved conditional use by accepting plans that omitted recorded easement, amounting to an unauthorized variance | The zoning ordinance requires conditional‑use applications to include an existing‑features plan showing recorded easements; omission violates mandatory submission rule and Council thereby granted an impermissible variance | Section cited for application contents is procedural (application contents), not substantive conditional‑use standards; Objector did not claim Applicant failed to meet actual conditional‑use criteria; easement is a private/title matter outside Council’s role | Held: Council did not err or grant a variance; Applicant satisfied the ordinance’s substantive conditional‑use standards and adequately apprised Council of the easement at the hearing; title/easement disputes are for courts, not zoning proceedings |
| 2. Whether Section 27‑2703(E)(5)(b)(1) (conceptual plan contents) creates mandatory substantive criteria for TOD conditional use | Must be strictly followed; omission is fatal to approval | That provision governs application contents (conceptual plan), not the conditional‑use substantive standards in §27‑2703(E)(4); failure to include a private easement on a conceptual plan does not equate to noncompliance with conditional‑use criteria | Held: The provision requires submission of a conceptual plan, but Applicant presented evidence (Declaration, engineer overlay) at the hearing so Council had adequate notice; omission did not render approval unlawful |
| 3. Whether Applicant’s preliminary/final land development plans violated SALDO by omitting the easement, and whether Council improperly waived or varied SALDO requirements | SALDO requires depiction of deed restrictions/easements on preliminary/final plans; omission required written waiver or should have prevented approval | The SALDO provisions apply to public/quasi‑public easements; the Declaration and record describe private driveways owned by an association (no public entity), so SALDO depiction requirement did not apply; engineer testified the easement could not be accurately plotted due to lack of metes/bounds | Held: No SALDO violation shown; evidence supports conclusion easement is private and/or not plotable; Council did not improperly grant a variance or unauthorized waiver |
| 4. Whether Objector’s appeals were frivolous such that appellate fees/delay damages should be awarded to Applicant | Objector’s appeals lacked merit and included non‑record documents; Applicant sought counsel fees and delay damages under Pa. R.A.P. 2744 | Objector’s procedural defects did not so preclude appellate review; trial court twice denied bond request and found appeals not frivolous | Held: Appeals lacked merit but were not frivolous; request for fees/delay damages denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kassouf v. Twp. of Scott, 883 A.2d 463 (Pa. 2005) (standard of appellate review for land development when trial court takes no additional evidence)
- In re Richboro CD Partners, L.P., 89 A.3d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (applicant bears burden to show compliance with ordinance standards for conditional use)
- Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (treatment of conditional use/special exception standards and burden of proof)
- Visionquest Nat’l, Ltd. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Honey Brook Twp., 569 A.2d 915 (Pa. 1990) (if applicant satisfies ordinance standards, application must be granted absent proof of substantial community harm)
- Michener Appeal, 115 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1955) (title/building restrictions and private covenants are not to be decided in zoning proceedings)
- Anderson v. Bd. of Supervisors of Price Twp., 437 A.2d 1308 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (subdivision/plan approval cannot be denied based on deed restrictions when technical requirements are met)
- Berner v. Montour Twp., 120 A.3d 433 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (land development plan complying with objective SALDO provisions must be approved)
- Aldridge v. Jackson Twp., 983 A.2d 247 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (deference to local governing body in zoning ordinance interpretation)