M. Bolinger v. Bd. of Commissioners of Manheim Twp.
1217 C.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 13, 2021Background
- Developers (RV Holdings and Hurst Family Estate) sought conditional‑use approval for a master site planned development in Manheim Township’s T‑5 Oregon Village Overlay Area covering two adjacent sites totaling ~75 acres.
- The Township Zoning Ordinance requires a master site plan showing all existing land uses and lot lines within 200 feet, including “historic sites.”
- Public hearings produced expert testimony on traffic (Developers’ expert Schick) and historic resources (objectors’ expert Harris); Appellant Bolinger owns a Victorian bed‑and‑breakfast within 200 feet and claimed it is a historic resource and would be affected by vibration and traffic/visibility changes.
- The Board approved the conditional use with conditions and found the plan met submission requirements; it concluded the project would reduce traffic on certain local roads and retain on‑site historic structures.
- Common Pleas affirmed the Board; the Commonwealth Court reversed, vacated Common Pleas’ order, and remanded to Common Pleas with instructions to remand to the Board for further findings and a new decision.
Issues
| Issue | Bolinger's Argument | Developers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Developers were required to identify and label Appellant’s B&B as a “historic site” on the master site plan under §2406.13(E) | The B&B is within 200 feet and is a historic resource (per Historic Sites Inventory and Harris), so it had to be identified and labeled as a historic site on the plan | Developers located the B&B on the plan and contend it is not an established "historic site" requiring a specific label; §2406.13(E) requires identification, not labeling | Court held Board erred by excluding “historic sites” from the definition of “historic resource” and remanded to the Board to decide whether Appellant’s property qualifies; if so, it must be labeled on the master plan. |
| Whether Developers (or the Board) adequately demonstrated compliance with the overlay’s purpose to protect/preserve historic character | Appellant/objectors say Developers did not show how off‑site historic structures (including the B&B) would be protected and that the Board’s traffic‑reduction conclusion lacks supporting analysis | Developers point to traffic study and Board findings that the project reduces traffic on affected roads, protecting nearby historic resources; also argue Appellant hasn’t shown historic status or adverse impact | Court held the burden to prove noncompliance with general ordinance purposes rests with objectors; the Board did not adequately analyze whether objectors met that burden—remanded for the Board to expressly consider whether objectors carried their burden. |
| Whether the Board violated its Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA) trustee duty by approving the project without protecting the B&B/historic resources | ERA requires Commonwealth to conserve historic values; Board breached trustee role by not requiring protection/labeling of B&B | Developers argue ERA inapplicable, B&B is not a public natural resource and lacks proven historic value or demonstrable adverse impact | Court declined to decide ERA issue now, noting it depends on the Board’s findings on historic status and protection; left ERA question to be addressed on remand. |
| Whether the appellate courts exceeded scope by independently deciding historic‑status or impact issues without remand | Appellant argues Board erred; Developers say Appellant abandoned some impact arguments | Common Pleas undertook independent factual analysis beyond scope for a no‑additional‑evidence appeal | Court held Common Pleas exceeded its limited scope and remanded to the Board for fact‑finding rather than resolving historic‑status or impact facts itself. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (conditional uses treated like special exceptions; applicant bears burden to meet ordinance criteria)
- White Advert. Metro, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Susquehanna Twp., 453 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (allocation of burdens between applicant and objectors on specific vs. general criteria)
- Bray v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (framework for burden of proof on general policy issues)
- 1050 Ashbourne Assocs., LLC v. Cheltenham Twp. Bd. of Comm’rs, 167 A.3d 828 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (scope of review where trial court takes no additional evidence)
- Board of Supervisors, 862 A.2d 686 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (discussing application of burdens and standards in conditional‑use/special exception contexts)