Tri-County Landfill, Inc. v. Pine Township Zoning Hearing Board
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 49
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Tri-County seeks zoning approvals for a proposed landfill on ~99 acres in Pine and Liberty Townships, with related appeals and multiple relief options.
- ZHB conducted extensive hearings; Tri-County amended its applications to include variance by estoppel and laches theories.
- ZHB found the zoning ordinance limits non-conforming uses, determined the landfill uses were not properly approved, and treated a modern landfill as a structure subject to a 40-foot height cap.
- DEP history shows decades of landfill and transfer-station activity prior to 1990, with abandonment of the landfill use in 1990 and continuation as a transfer station thereafter.
- In 1990-1992 settlements and DEP/municipal actions framed the legal status, including closure plans and re-permitting issues, and Tri-County later formed Tri-County Landfill, Inc. to pursue permits.
- The ZHB concluded the only grandfathered disposal area was ~19.2 acres (old area) plus 6.7 acres (new area) needing closure; enlargement required ZHB relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a landfill a structure under the zoning ordinance? | Tri-County argues the term is ambiguous and should be read to exclude landfills; the statute should be construed in landowner’s favor. | Objectors contend the landfill fits the broad, non-exhaustive structure definition and is therefore subject to the 40-foot limit. | Landfill falls within the unambiguous structure definition; 40-foot height applies. |
| Does the 40-foot height restriction create a de facto exclusion of landfills? | Height cap makes a viable landfill economically impossible; exclusionary effect is unconstitutional. | There is evidence of viability and other industrial sites; no complete exclusion shown. | No de facto exclusion; record supports viability within 40 feet and no constitutional barrier. |
| Did Tri-County abandon its non-conforming landfill use or is natural expansion applicable? | There was ongoing non-conforming use; abandonment or natural expansion should be recognized to permit ongoing landfill use. | ZHB properly found abandonment and rejected natural expansion; transfer station and absence of ZHB relief negate continuance. | Tri-County abandoned the landfill use; natural expansion inapplicable; non-conforming status not preserved for landfill. |
| Is Tri-County entitled to a dimensional variance or equitable relief (estoppel/laches) to pursue a 40-foot landfill? | Equitable relief and dimensional variance are warranted given unique physical circumstances and long-standing reliance. | Evidence shows viability within 40 feet; no unnecessary hardship; equitable relief not warranted. | No dimensional variance or estoppel/laches relief; ZHB/trial court findings upheld. |
| Did Objectors' cross-appeal status affect the scope of review? | Tri-County contends Objectors lacked standing to challenge non-conforming use decisions. | Objectors were aggrieved by the trial court’s order; cross-appeal rules do not bar merits review. | Cross-appeal issues were properly limited; merits outcome unaffected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dechert, LLP v. Commonwealth, 606 Pa. 334 (Pa. 2010) (including, but not limited to broadening scope of 'structure' interpretation)
- Aldine Apartments, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 39 Pa.Cmwlth. 204 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (use of 'including among other[s]' to broaden reach)
- McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, 546 Pa. 463 (Pa. 1996) (divided Supreme Court on breadth of categories under broad definitions)
- Hertzberg v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249 (Pa. 1998) (relaxed standard for dimensional variance: unnecessary hardship factors)
- Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 873 A.2d 807 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (standard of review for ZHB denials; deference to findings)
- Isaacs v. Wilkes-Barre City Zoning Hearing Bd., 148 Pa.Cmwlth. 578 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992) (statutory interpretation principles relevant to ambiguity)