Red Lion Borough v. Red Lion Borough ZHB and ArthurLee, LLC
55 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- ArthurLee, LLC (AL) owns property at 84–90 N. Main St., Red Lion, and allowed a nearby used-car dealer to park inventory there.
- Borough zoning officer informed AL it needed a special exception to park additional used cars; AL applied (March 2016) for a special exception for an automobile sales lot and a variance from an indoor display square‑footage requirement.
- The Zoning Hearing Board granted the special exception and the variance orally at a May 17, 2016 hearing and issued a written decision on June 14, 2016.
- Borough appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, arguing AL had not shown it met the ordinance’s 80‑foot minimum lot width (Section 27‑605.B); trial court dismissed the appeal as the lot‑width issue had not been placed squarely before the Board.
- Borough appealed to the Commonwealth Court, asserting it has statutory standing to appeal Board decisions even if it did not participate at the hearing; AL argued the Borough waived the lot‑width objection by failing to raise it before the Board.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, holding the lot‑width issue was waived because it was not properly presented to the Board and distinguishing prior cases recognizing municipal standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Borough) | Defendant's Argument (AL / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borough may raise on appeal a lot‑width objection not presented to the ZHB | Borough: Municipalities have statutory standing to appeal any Board decision; they need not participate in every hearing to preserve appellate rights | AL: Issue was not raised before the Board; zoning officer present could have raised it but did not; therefore Borough waived the issue | Court: Borough has standing but waived the lot‑width issue by not placing it squarely before the Board; appeal dismissed on that ground |
| Whether a special exception may be granted absent proof of meeting a specific ordinance requirement (80 ft width) | Borough: Special‑exception applicants must satisfy specific ordinance criteria at the hearing; noncompliance is reviewable on appeal | AL: The record shows no contention on lot width at the hearing; Board was inclined to approve and AL sought a variance only for square footage | Court: Applicant must meet ordinance criteria, but here the record lacked a contested lot‑width issue so it was waived and not properly before the court |
| Whether Lower Paxton / West Manchester require different treatment because Borough did not actively participate | Borough: Those cases allow municipalities to appeal even if they did not appear; requiring appearance would be unreasonable | AL: Those cases are distinguishable; they addressed standing, not preservation of issues | Court: Distinguished those precedents—standing acknowledged, but they do not excuse failure to preserve issues at the hearing |
| Whether trial court erred by relying on Borough nonattendence | Borough: Trial court dismissed appeal partly because Borough did not attend the hearing | AL: Trial court recognized Borough participation but found the lot‑width question incidental and therefore waived | Court: Rejected Borough’s characterization; trial court dismissed due to waiver, not mere nonattendance |
Key Cases Cited
- West Manchester Township v. Zoning Hearing Board of West Manchester Township, 403 A.2d 234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (municipality is a party to zoning board proceedings and has standing to appeal)
- Lower Paxton Township v. Fieseler Neon Signs, 391 A.2d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (municipality need not participate in every hearing to preserve right to appeal; legislature intended municipality be representative party)
- Elizabethtown/Mt. Joy Associates, L.P. v. Mt. Joy Township Zoning Hearing Board, 934 A.2d 759 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (applicant must satisfy specific ordinance requirements to obtain a special exception)
- Greaton Properties, Inc. v. Lower Merion Township, 796 A.2d 1038 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (burden is on applicant to persuade board that proposed use meets ordinance criteria)
- 813 Associates v. Zoning Hearing Board of Springfield Township, 479 A.2d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (issues not raised before a zoning hearing board may not be raised for first time on appeal)