S. Rollins v. Middle Smithfield Twp. ZHB v. Twp. of Middle Smithfield
42 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Sandra Rollins purchased a one‑acre property in an R‑1 (single‑family) zoning district in 2007; the lot contained two manufactured homes that are uninhabitable and never occupied since purchase.
- Following tree clearing and placement of a second manufactured home (not yet attached), numerous vehicles and miscellaneous items accumulated on the lot (buses, trailers, boats, restaurant equipment, rusting tanks, storage containers, etc.).
- The Township Zoning Officer issued an Enforcement Notice (Oct. 7, 2014) alleging establishment of a prohibited G5 “junkyard,” change of use without a permit, and failure to obtain a Certificate of Compliance.
- Rollins appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB); public hearings were held with testimony from the Zoning Officer, neighbors, and Rollins.
- The ZHB found the property was being used as a junkyard, upheld the Enforcement Notice, and the trial court affirmed; Rollins appealed to this Court, which affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rollins’ use of the property constituted a prohibited junkyard | Rollins: items are usable, many registered, intended to rehabilitate homes and use items for residential/business purposes | Township: accumulation of discarded/inoperable vehicles and debris fits ordinance definitions of junk/junkyard | Court: Substantial evidence supports ZHB finding of junkyard; upheld enforcement |
| Whether ZHB should have construed the ordinance liberally in favor of Rollins | Rollins: zoning provisions should be construed for property owner | Township: ordinance language is clear and bans G5 junkyard in R‑1; deference to administrative interpretation | Court: Rule of liberal construction inapplicable because ordinance was clear; ZHB entitled to deference |
| Whether Rollins changed the property use without a zoning permit or obtained a Certificate of Compliance | Rollins: maintaining/storing items and plans to repair homes do not change permitted residential use | Township: storage/accumulation amounted to new/use change and no certificate was sought | Court: ZHB reasonably concluded use changed to prohibited junkyard and no certificate was obtained; upheld violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Risker v. Smith Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 886 A.2d 727 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (zoning board interpretation entitled to deference)
- McIntyre v. Bd. of Supervisors of Shohola Twp., 614 A.2d 335 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (zoning officer’s ordinance interpretation entitled to deference)
- Kohl v. New Sewickley Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 108 A.3d 961 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deference to board and officer interpretations)
- Joseph v. N. Whitehall Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 16 A.3d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (ZHB is fact‑finder and credibility arbiter)
- Isaacs v. Wilkes‑Barre City Zoning Hearing Bd., 612 A.2d 559 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (liberal construction favors owner only where ordinance ambiguous)
- 8131 Roosevelt Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Phila., 794 A.2d 963 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (substantial evidence supports zoning findings)
- Valley View Civic Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 462 A.2d 640 (Pa.) (definition of substantial evidence in zoning context)
- Boyer v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Franklin Twp., 987 A.2d 219 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (standard of review when trial court takes no new evidence)