Chester County Outdoor, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Penn Twp. ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Chester County Outdoor, LLC,           :
    Appellant      :
    :
    v.                         :   No. 1599 C.D. 2013
    :   Argued: June 20, 2014
    Board of Supervisors of Penn           :
    Township                               :
    BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
    HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
    HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE BROBSON                           FILED: July 31, 2014
    Appellant Chester County Outdoor, LLC (CCO) appeals from an
    order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court), dated
    September 6, 2013. The trial court sustained the preliminary objections filed by
    the Board of Supervisors of Penn Township (Township), thereby dismissing
    CCO’s complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. We affirm.
    CCO engages in the business of developing, owning, operating, and
    leasing commercial off-premises advertising billboards. CCO is a billboard lessee
    of property located at 27 Commerce Boulevard (Property) in Penn Township. On
    August 10, 2011, CCO filed a challenge to the substantive validity of the
    Township’s Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance) with the Penn Township Zoning
    Hearing Board (ZHB). Specifically, CCO alleged that Section 1800.G of the
    Ordinance unlawfully excluded billboards.     The Township intervened in the
    challenge and agreed with CCO’s position. On December 1, 2011, the ZHB issued
    a decision and order sustaining CCO’s validity challenge.
    Notably, during the proceedings before the ZHB, CCO withdrew its
    request for site-specific relief and accompanying plans, which it had previously
    submitted in conjunction with its challenge. Nevertheless, the ZHB noted in its
    decision that CCO would not be entitled to the particular site-specific relief
    depicted in its application, because the plans would not comply with various
    unchallenged sections of the Ordinance. As a consequence, CCO appealed to the
    trial court, alleging that the ZHB erred and abused its discretion in denying CCO
    site-specific relief. In concluding that CCO did not have standing to appeal, the
    trial court denied CCO’s appeal and affirmed the ZHB’s decision. This Court
    subsequently affirmed on appeal, explaining that CCO was the prevailing party
    below and that the portion of the ZHB’s decision relating to site-specific relief was
    dictum.     In re Chester Cnty. Outdoor, LLC, 
    64 A.3d 1148
    , 1152 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 2013).
    On June 19, 2013, CCO filed the instant declaratory judgment action
    with the trial court, seeking a declaration that (1) CCO is a successful challenger to
    the Ordinance’s unlawful exclusion of billboards and (2) only the trial court can
    grant the site-specific relief owed to a successful challenger of a zoning ordinance.1
    1
    With regard to the latter request, CCO specifically sought a declaration that only the
    trial court could determine the form of judicial relief to be awarded to a successful challenger
    under Section 1006-A(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of
    July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S.
    § 11006-A(c), or grant equitable relief to a successful challenger. (Reproduced Record (R.R.)
    at 11a.) For purposes of this appeal, we will refer to the relief sought by CCO as site-specific
    relief.
    2
    (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 9a-11a.) On July 15, 2013, the Township filed
    preliminary objections to CCO’s complaint in the nature of a demurrer. In the
    alternative, the Township moved for the ZHB to be appointed as a special hearing
    master pursuant to Section 1006-A(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning
    Code2 to determine whether CCO was entitled to site-specific relief and, if so, to
    what extent.
    On September 6, 2013, the trial court issued an order sustaining the
    Township’s preliminary objections, thereby dismissing CCO’s complaint with
    prejudice and without leave to replead.          The trial court explained that CCO
    successfully challenged Section 1800.G of the Ordinance, such that it was no
    longer an impediment to CCO’s use of the Property. (R.R. at 109a.) The trial
    court further noted that it did not appear that CCO had applied for any use of the
    Property. (Id.) The trial court rejected CCO’s position that only the trial court can
    determine the form of relief to be awarded to a party who successfully challenges a
    provision of a zoning ordinance. (Id.) In so doing, the trial court explained that in
    a zoning appeal involving an applicant that has successfully challenged a provision
    of a zoning ordinance and sought site-specific relief, the trial court is empowered
    to grant relief. (Id.) Nevertheless, in a circumstance where the applicant sought
    relief from a zoning hearing board and obtained all the relief it sought, the trial
    court no longer has jurisdiction to grant any relief. (Id.) Finally, the trial court
    observed that CCO had provided no reason, and the trial court could not discern
    2
    Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, added by the Act of December 21, 1988,
    P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. § 11006-A(c).
    3
    one, for why CCO could not now apply to the Township for a use of the Property.
    (Id.) CCO then appealed to this Court.
    On appeal,3 CCO argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the
    Township’s preliminary objections, because the trial court has exclusive authority
    to determine the site-specific relief to be awarded to a successful challenger of a
    zoning ordinance.        CCO also argues that municipalities lack the authority to
    determine such relief. Moreover, CCO argues that the trial court has the ability to
    grant site-specific relief even where no plans were submitted to the zoning hearing
    board. Finally, CCO argues that current Pennsylvania law provides no remedy to a
    landowner whose challenge is successful before the zoning hearing board.
    This Court agrees with the trial court’s decision and further concludes
    that the opinion of the Honorable Robert J. Shenkin, issued pursuant to
    Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a), thoroughly discusses and
    properly disposes of the arguments raised on appeal to this Court. As such, we
    adopt the analysis in his opinion, filed October 10, 2013, for purposes of appellate
    3
    This Court’s review of a trial court’s order sustaining preliminary objections in the
    nature of a demurrer is limited to considering whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or
    abused its discretion. Braun v. Borough of Millersburg, 
    44 A.3d 1213
    , 1215 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth.),
    appeal denied, 
    55 A.3d 525
    (Pa. 2012). In ruling on preliminary objections, courts must accept
    as true all well-pleaded material allegations in a complaint and any reasonable inferences that
    may be drawn from the averments. Meier v. Maleski, 
    648 A.2d 595
    , 600 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1994). Courts, however, are not bound by legal conclusions encompassed in a
    complaint, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of
    opinion. 
    Id. Courts may
    sustain preliminary objections only when the law makes clear that the
    plaintiff cannot succeed on his claim, and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the
    plaintiff. 
    Id. Courts review
    preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer under these
    guidelines and may sustain a demurrer only when a plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief
    may be granted. Clark v. Beard, 
    918 A.2d 155
    , 158 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
    4
    review. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order on the basis of the attached
    Rule 1925(a) opinion issued in Chester County Outdoor, LLC v. Board of
    Supervisors   of    Penn   Township,   Chester   County,   No.   13-05944,    filed
    October 10, 2013.
    P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
    5
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Chester County Outdoor, LLC,          :
    Appellant     :
    :
    v.                        :   No. 1599 C.D. 2013
    :
    Board of Supervisors of Penn          :
    Township                              :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2014, the order of the Court of
    Common Pleas of Chester County, dated September 6, 2013, sustaining the Board
    of Supervisors of Penn Township’s preliminary objections and dismissing Chester
    County Outdoor, LLC’s complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead, is
    hereby AFFIRMED. This Court adopts the analysis of the Honorable Robert J.
    Shenkin in his opinion, issued pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate
    Procedure 1925(a), in Chester County Outdoor, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of
    Penn Township, Chester County, No. 13-05944, filed October 10, 2013.
    P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1599 C.D. 2013

Judges: Brobson, J.

Filed Date: 7/31/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014