Marquise Investment, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh
11 A.3d 607
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- Marquise filed a conditional use application to operate an adult cabaret at 1635 West Carson Street in a Pittsburgh UI zoning district.
- The Onala Club, a nonprofit social club for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, is located within 80 feet of the proposed use.
- Planning Commission recommended denial; City Council failed to hold a hearing within 45 days, resulting in a deemed denial and a trial court remand.
- The trial court conducted a de novo hearing, admitted evidence from the Planning Commission record, and granted Marquise's application on November 23, 2009.
- The Pittsburgh Code provisions at issue include Section 911.02 (adult entertainment as conditional use), 911.04.A.1 (specific operational standards), and 922.06.E.1 (general criteria for conditional uses).
- The central legal question was whether burden shifting and the evidence on health, safety, welfare and traffic sustained the trial court’s affirmative ruling for Marquise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden shift for health, safety and welfare | Marquise maintains the City failed to rebut the presumption of general welfare. | City contends objectors’ evidence shifts burden back to Marquise to prove no harm. | Burden on City; Marquise prevails. |
| Onala Club impact evidence adequacy | Evidence about harm to Onala Club is speculative and insufficient. | Objectors’ testimony shows potential health/safety harm from the cabaret. | Speculative evidence insufficient to meet high-probability standard. |
| Traffic impact proof | Marquise proved no detrimental traffic impact; parking and traffic plans meet code and surrounding conditions. | Testimony showed existing traffic issues and potential increases. | City failed to prove detrimental traffic; burden on City not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldridge v. Jackson Twp., 983 A.2d 247 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (burden shifting; specific vs general requirements; presumptions for conditional uses)
- Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1980) (objectors carry burden on general detrimental effects; applicant bears burden on specific requirements)
- Rural Area Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Bd., 646 A.2d 717 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (cannot rely on speculation to meet burden of proof about harms)
- Spencer v. McKean Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 537 A.2d 943 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1988) (applicant bears burden only for specific criteria; objectors for general concerns)
- Sunnyside Up Corp. v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Bd., 739 A.2d 644 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (property value testimony requires more than mere speculation)
- Accelerated Enters., Inc. v. The Hazle Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 773 A.2d 824 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (increased traffic must be shown to have high probability of harm to health/safety)
- Appeal of O'Hara, 389 Pa. 35 (131 A.2d 587) (high-degree of probability required for traffic impacts on health and safety)
- In re McGlynn, 974 A.2d 525 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (cond. use analysis; policy considerations; burden-shifting framework)