S. Davis-Haas v. Exeter Twp. ZHB and MetroDev V, LP and Exeter Twp.
166 A.3d 527
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- MetroDev V, LP (Landowner) owned ~46.36 acres spanning Exeter Township; Exeter adopted a new zoning ordinance (Ordinance 596) in July 2005 that reduced allowable lots on the subject property.
- Landowner filed a procedural challenge to the 2005 ordinance with the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) within 30 days of effectiveness, then withdrew that challenge after a September 2005 settlement with the Township that allowed review under the old ordinance.
- Subsequent litigation produced multiple appeals; this Court later invalidated the settlement as an improper usurpation of the ZHB’s role and directed the ZHB to hear the merits of the original 2005 procedural challenge.
- The ZHB held hearings in 2015 and found multiple statutory defects in the 2005 adoption process (failure to publish adequate notice/summary, failure to file with county law library, failure to re-submit revised drafts to planning agencies, failure to post/mail notices for rezoned tracts, etc.), sustained Landowner’s procedural challenge, and declared the 2005 ordinance void ab initio.
- Objectors (adjacent landowners) appealed, arguing the trial court should have enforced a 2016 settlement they say was reached, that Landowner’s challenge/process was defective and prejudicial to Objectors, and that Landowner lacked standing after selling a parcel. The trial court affirmed the ZHB; this Court affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Objectors) | Defendant's Argument (Landowner/ZHB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforce 2016 settlement agreement | Parties reached an enforceable agreement in court on essential terms; court should enforce it | Material term (engineer boundary certifications) became impossible to perform; no meeting of the minds on final, enforceable terms | Trial court did not err — agreement unenforceable due to impracticability/impossibility of performance (affirmed) |
| Validity of 2005 procedural challenge/process | Township and Landowner conduct and delay prejudiced Objectors; substantial reliance and due process justify upholding ordinance | Landowner timely filed (within 30 days) and ZHB was directed to apply 2005 law; strict compliance required and defects proved | ZHB/trial court correctly found multiple statutory defects; ordinance void ab initio (affirmed) |
| Burden and relevance of reliance/notice doctrines | Even with some actual notice, Objectors relied on ordinance; cases soften strictness where reliance exists (Messina, etc.) | Where challenge is filed within 30 days, challenger need only prove strict noncompliance; reliance presumptions apply only to delayed challenges | Where challenge filed within 30 days, strict compliance standard applies and reliance arguments do not defeat a timely procedural challenge (affirmed) |
| Standing after partial sale of property | Landowner lost standing because it sold the parcel identified in the application and did not obtain assignment; therefore challenge should be dismissed | Landowner retained a proprietary interest in the remainder of the subject parcel (same tax parcel ID); standing was not contested before ZHB (waived) | Standing not raised before ZHB (waived); alternatively Landowner retained sufficient property interest under MPC definition (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlino v. Whitpain Investors, 453 A.2d 1385 (Pa. 1982) (contract zoning is disapproved)
- Glen-Gery Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Dover Township, 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006) (statutory publication/notice requirements for ordinance adoption are mandatory)
- Messina v. E. Penn Twp., 62 A.3d 363 (Pa. 2012) (reliance/substantial reliance considerations in procedural challenges to ordinances)
- Schadler v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Weisenberg Township, 850 A.2d 619 (Pa. 2004) (procedural adoption defects render an ordinance void regardless of individual actual notice)
- Mazzella v. Koken, 739 A.2d 531 (Pa. 1999) (settlement enforceability requires meeting of the minds on terms)
- West v. Peoples First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 106 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1954) (doctrine of impossibility/impracticability of performance discharges contractual duties)
- Hawk v. Eldred Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 983 A.2d 216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (burden when procedural challenge is timely filed — strict compliance required)
- Miravich v. Twp. of Exeter, 6 A.3d 1076 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standing of adjacent landowners to challenge approvals)
- Miravich v. Twp. of Exeter, 54 A.3d 106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (settlement invalid where it usurped ZHB role and statutory hearing/notice rules)