Williams Holding Group, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of West Hanover Township
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 458
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Developer Williams Holding Group sought conditional use approval to construct a stormwater facility within SPOD and HSPOD overlays in West Hanover Township's NC zoning district.
- The proposed facility would enclose a 36-inch stormwater pipe in an unnamed Manada Creek tributary for about 327–369 feet, eliminating portions of SPOD and HSPOD.
- Developer obtained DEP encroachment and COE discharge permits, but the Township Board of Supervisors denied the conditional-use application.
- The trial court affirmed the Board's denial, and Developer appealed, challenging the Board’s interpretation of EPOD provisions and the 'minimally invasive' standard.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the Board erred in applying the EPOD provisions to deny based on land-removal and minimally invasive criteria, and remanded to issue the requested conditional-use permits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EPOD criteria were sufficiently specific and objective. | Williams argued the Board failed to apply objective standards (195-80(E) and 195-182(A)(1)). | Board contended the standards were valid, with land removal and minimally invasive requirements controlling denial. | Board erred; standards were ambiguous. |
| Whether encroachment permits preempt local EPOD standards. | Developer contends DEP/COE permits demonstrate compliance with EPOD minimization. | Board held permits do not preempt local EPOD requirements; additional standards apply. | Permits do not preempt local EPOD standards; local rules govern. |
| Whether the 'minimally invasive' construction requirement is objective or subjective. | Developer argued DEP/COE criteria show minimal impact; the provision is objective if read with BMPs. | Board treated 'minimally invasive' as a potentially objective/guidance-based standard allowing denial if impacts were greater. | Ambiguous provision; the burden fell to objectors if treated as subjective; reversal of denial. |
| Whether the proposed elimination of EPODs constitutes more than minimally invasive construction. | Developer submitted permits and expert testimony showing minimal impacts to WPOD/SPOD/HSPOD areas. | Board found the plan would destroy EPODs, exceeding minimally invasive limits. | Not per se disqualifying; the court viewed destruction of EPODs as not necessarily fatal under ambiguity. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (conditional uses require specific, objective standards; deference to governing body)
- Bray v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 410 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (special exceptions require reasonably definite conditions; vague standards unfavorable)
- Marquise Investment, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (gray area standards; burden shifting when evidence of detriment)
- City of Hope v. Sadsbury Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 890 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (ambiguity resolved in favor property owner when interpreting ordinance)
- In re Briekstone, Realty Corp., 789 A.2d 333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (interpretation of agency’s zoning order; deference to board but scopally reviewed)
- Herr v. Lancaster Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 625 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (standard of review for governing body decisions on conditional uses)