In Re: Application of D.M. Lenker and M.M. Lenker and Donco Construction, Inc. For Final Approval of Final Subdivision/Land Development Plan of Lenker Estates-Phases II and III v. Halifax Twp. Board of Supervisors M.A. Sweigard
163 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- Lenker (applicant) sought final approval for Phases II & III of Lenker Estates after Board denied approval in 2007; parties negotiated a settlement (2013 REDA) and a revised final plan (RFP II).
- RFP II incorporated engineer comments and stormwater controls; Appellant Sweigard, an adjoining landowner, objected that runoff would increase onto his property.
- Board approved the 2013 REDA and RFP II in October 2013; Sweigard intervened in the underlying land-use appeal and sought documents and hearings about stormwater impacts.
- Sweigard alleged violations of the SALDO/MPC, lack of required findings, denial of due process, and entitlement to an evidentiary hearing; he submitted his own engineering report and sought supplementation of the record.
- The trial court approved the settlement (REDA + RFP II), denied Sweigard’s motions for invalidation and for an evidentiary hearing, finding Sweigard had opportunities to participate and that the settlement did not impose duties on him or contravene the public interest.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in approving the court-supervised settlement, denying an evidentiary hearing, or concluding Sweigard had procedural due process; private-property claims must be pursued in separate actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sweigard) | Defendant's Argument (Board/Applicant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2013 REDA/RFP II violated SALDO/MPC | REDA/RFP II fail to address increased stormwater runoff and thus violate SALDO/MPC requirements | Settlement was negotiated under court supervision; RFP II addressed engineer comments and satisfied Board; settlement process is permissible | Court held settlement did not violate public-interest standards under MPC and did not impose duties on third parties; SALDO waivers/contingent approvals permitted in settlements |
| Whether Sweigard was denied due process / adequate opportunity to be heard | Sweigard was excluded from certain documents/meetings and thus deprived of meaningful participation | Sweigard had notice, intervened, submitted objections and engineering reports, and received requested documents; process provided meaningful opportunity | Court held Sweigard received procedural due process and meaningful chances to participate; no abuse of discretion finding by trial court |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing or supplementation of record was required under Section 1005-A MPC | A hearing was necessary to resolve factual stormwater disputes and new evidence; court should remand or appoint referee | Trial court had a voluminous record and found additional hearing unnecessary; discretionary hearing not warranted | Court affirmed denial of evidentiary hearing: record was sufficient and trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether third-party intervenor can use land‑use appeal to vindicate private property rights | Sweigard sought to prevent development as a means to protect his private property interests (easement/trespass claim) | Governing body and court process address public land-use issues; private-property remedies belong in separate original actions | Court clarified land-use appeal review is not a vehicle to adjudicate private property claims; such claims must be pursued independently |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Township Taxpayers Ass'n v. Summit Township Board of Supervisors, 411 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (favoring court-approved settlements in land-use disputes where objectors had opportunity to participate)
- Yaracs v. Summit Academy, 845 A.2d 203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (upholding settlement-expansion of a nonconforming use with court approval)
- Boeing Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 822 A.2d 153 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (rejecting collateral attack where objector had prior opportunity to participate)
- Miravich v. Township of Exeter, 54 A.3d 106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (invalidating a settlement that violated MPC procedural requirements)
- BPG Real Estate Investors-Straw Party II, L.P. v. Board of Supervisors of Newtown Township, 990 A.2d 140 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (trial court review of settlements limited to issues in underlying litigation; public interest is paramount)
- Carlino v. Whitpain Investors, 453 A.2d 1385 (Pa. 1982) (public interest is controlling in evaluating land-use settlements)
- T.H. Properties, L.P. v. Upper Salford Township Board of Supervisors, 970 A.2d 495 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (trial court's acceptance/rejection of settlement reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Koresko v. Farley, 844 A.2d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (MPC permits adjoining landowner intervention in land-use appeals)
- Appeal of Michener, 115 A.2d 367 (Pa. 1955) (distinguishing land-use review from adjudication of private property rights)
- In re AMA/American Marketing Ass'n, Inc., 142 A.3d 923 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (reaffirming limits of governing body authority and court supervision in land-use matters)
- Graybill v. Providence Township, 593 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (private-property remedies are for courts, not governing bodies)