IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David G. Szymanski, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 34 C.D. 2022 : Submitted: December 30, 2022 Board of Supervisors of : New London Township :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER

, President Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON , Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE , Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: April 20, 2023

David G. Szymanski (Szymanski) appeals from t he Order of the Court of

Common Pleas of Chester County ( Common Pleas) sustaining his appeal of the

December 3, 2020 Decision of the New London Township (Township) Board of
Supervisors (Board) and s triking a condition imposed by the Board in its Final Mino r

Subdivision Plan decision. On appeal, Szymanski a rgues that even though he
prevailed before Common Pleas

, dictum in Common Pleas’ opinion place d a cloud

on the title to his real estate. As a result, he requests that this Court vacate the dictum
in Common Pleas’ opinion. Since Szyman s ki does not have standing , we dismiss

his appeal.

I. Background

Common Pleas succinctly set forth the complex factual background and
procedural history of this matter as follows:2 David G. Szymanski is the owner of a farm of approximately 83 acres located [in] . . . New London Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania

. . . (the “Property”). In 2018, Mr. Szymanski submitted to the Board an Application for Subdivision and Land Development and Fi nal Minor Subdivision Plan (the “First Application” or “First Szymanski Plan”). The First Application sought to divide Mr. Szymanski’s Property into two lots

–– Lot 2A, consisting of approximately 11.28 acres with a proposed residence, attendant driveway and storm water management area

-- and Lot 2B, consisting of approximately 72.1 acres, including approximately 28.3 residual acres in New London Township and approximately 43.8 acres in Franklin Township containing Mr. Szymanski’s residence and farm
structure s. After obtaining necessary approvals from other agencies and satisfactory reviews by the Chester County Planning Commission and the Township Engineer, the Board issued a written decision on March 7, 2019, approving the First Application, subject to condi tions (the “First Decision”). One such condition was a requirement that the First Szymanski Plan include a note restricting any further subdivision of either parcel (the “First Condition”).

. . . The basis for the imposed First Condition was a previous not e placed on the 2003 Final Minor Subdivision Plan submitted by then

owner Alice J. Conner (the “Conner Plan”). The Conner Plan, which predated Mr. Szymanski’s purchase of the Property, contained the following language at Note 4:

4) Further subdivision of Lot #1 and Lot #2 shall be deed restricted as follows: Lot #1 shall be restricted to a maximum of one additional lot. Lot #2 shall be restricted to a maximum of one additional agricultural lot.

Specific language addressing these restrictions shall be incl uded in subsequent deeds of conveyance for these properties.

The following language appeared in the deed conveying Ms. Conner’s interest in the Property to Mr. Szymanski:

FUTURE SUBDIVISION: BUYER AGREES PURSUANT TO SELLER’S DESIRE THAT BUYER WILL AGREE TO ONLY SUBDIVIDING HIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY INTO TWO (2)3 PARCELS BOTH OF WHICH SHALL REMAIN SUBJECT TO ACT 319 [ 1 ] AFTER SETTLEMENT.

By letter dated February 7, 2019, Mr. Szymanski expressly rejected the First Condition and requested that the Board unconditionally approve his First Application. It did not do so and on April 8, 2019, Mr. Szymanski filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the First Condition. Later, Mr. Szymanski withdrew his appeal.

Two years later, on October 14, 2020, Mr. Szymans ki filed another Application (the “Second Application”) and Final Minor Subdivision Plan (the “Second Szymanski Plan”). On November 11, 2020, at a public meeting, the New London Township Planning Commission recommended approval of the Second Szymanski Plan

, subject to placement of the following note on the Second Szymanski Plan (the “Second Condition”):

12. This subdivision extinguishes the right to further subdivide by creating one new agricultural parcel on Lot #2

. . . as granted by the Final Subdivision Plan of Property Owned by Alice J. Conner dated 28 July 2003 last revised 29 September 2003. Upon approval of this subdivision, the new Lots #2A and #2B will be deed restricted from further subdivision.

By email dated November 13, 2020, Mr. Szymanski not ified the Township that he would not agree to place the new Note 12 on the Second Szymanski Plan as proposed by the Planning Commission. By Decision dated December 3, 2020, the Board determined that if Mr. Szymanski did not submit a revised Final Subdivisi on Plan containing the new Note 12 within thirty (30) days, the Second Szymanski Plan was denied.

On January 4, 2021, Mr. Szymanski appealed the December 3, 2020 Decision of the Board.

Common Pleas Op., 12/6/21, at 1

- 3.

Common Pleas, by order filed Decem ber 6, 2021, sustained Szyman s ki’s
appeal, striking the Second Condition as a requirement for approval of Szyman s ki’s

1 Act of December 19, 1974, P.L. 973, as amended , 72 P.S. §§ 5490.1

– 5490.134

Final Minor Subdivision Plan. Common Pleas Order, 12/6/21. Despite obtaining
the relief he requested, Szymanski appeal ed Common Pleas’ d ecision to this Court

. On appeal, Szymanski argues a portion of Common Pleas’ opinion, in which

Common Pleas determined the restriction s in Szymanski’s deed w ere “binding on

Mr. Szymanski and future property owners

, ” placed a cloud upon his title. See

ge nerally Appellant’s Br. Accordingly, Szymanski believes he was aggrieved by

Common Pleas ’ opinion. Id. The Board , however, argues that Szymanski, as the
prevailing party before Common Pleas, does not have standing to pursue this appeal.

II. Standing
Rule 501 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure provide s that “any
party who is aggrieved by an appealable order . . . may appeal therefrom.” Pa.R.A.P.
501. “Whether a party has standing to appeal is determined on a case

- by

- case basis
and, if a person is determined aggrieved, he has standing.” Chiro

- Med Rev. Co. v. Bureau of Workers’ Comp. , 908 A.2d 980, 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2 006) (citation

omitted). “As a general matter, the core concept of the doctrine of standing is that a
person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge
is not ‘aggrieved’ and has no right to obtain a judicial resolution o f his challenge. ”

In re T.J.

, 739 A.2d 478, 481 (Pa. 1999).
Generally , “[a] prevailing party is not ‘aggrieved’ and therefore, does not have
standing to appeal an order that has been entered in his or her favor.” Ratti v.
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. , 758 A.2d 695, 700 (Pa. Super. 2000). W here the
prevailing party receives an incomplete remedy

, however, they are generally
permitted to appeal. See Chiro

- Med , 908 A.2d 980, 985 (prevailing party permitted

to cross

- appeal where “it did not receive all the relief it requested ” ); Marsh v.
Hanley , 856 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appeal permitted where jury awarded wage5

loss damages but did not award damages for compensable bodily injuries);
Pittsburgh Constr. Co. v. Griffith , 834 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2003) ( prevailing party
permitted to cross

- appeal where trial court did n o t award contractual interest)

.
In essence , Szymanski filed a subdivision plan and requested approval from

the Board. When the Board de termined it would not approve his plan unless he
added additional notations to the plan

, Szymanski appealed and reques ted that

Common Pleas strike the Board’s requirement for additional notations . Common

Pleas sustained Szymanski’s appeal and st r uck the Board’s requirement for

additional notations . As a result, Szymanski was the prevailing party, and he
received all of the relief he requested from Common Pleas.

Nevertheless, Szymanski believes he was aggrieved by a statement in
Common Pleas’ opinion, which Szymanski repeatedly calls dictum. See generally
Appe llant’s Br. “Judicial dictum has been defined as ‘ [ a ] n opinion by a court on a
question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed
on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision. ’” City of Lower Burrell v.
City of Lower Burrell Wage & Policy Comm

. , 795 A.2d 432, 437 n. 7 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2002) (citation omitted). “ Dicta has no precedential value.” Id.
We agree with Szymanski that Common Pleas ’ statement that restriction s in
Szymanski’s deed were binding on Szym anski and future property owners was
judicial dictum. Common Pleas ’ ultimate decision was that the Board’s imposition
of additional conditions was improper. Whether restrictions in Szymanski’s deed

w ere binding on Szymanski and future owners was not essential to that decision.

We are not persuaded , however, by Szymanski’s arguments that Common

Pleas’ statement “has a confiscatory effect on [ his ] property

. ” See Appellant’s Br.

at 4 , 5 . Szymanski concedes Common Pleas ’ statemen t w as dictum , which means6

th at it has no precedential value. As a result , Common Pleas’ statement do es not
take anything from Szymanski, nor do es it affect his ability to pursue any issue s in

the future.

III. Conclusion
Szymanski received a complete remedy i n his appeal to Common Pleas, where
he was the prevailing party. In addition, Common Pleas’ statement that restrictions
in Szymanski’s deed were binding on Szymanski and future property owners did not
adversely affect Szymanski

, because he concedes this statement was

non

- precedential dictum. Therefore , Szymanski is not an “aggrieved” party under
Pennsylv ania Rule of Appellate Procedure 501 , and he lacks standing to appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss Szymanski’s appeal.

______________________________ STACY WALLACE , Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon concurs in result only.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David G. Szymanski, : Appellant :

:

v. : No. 34 C.D. 2022

: Board of Supervisors of : N ew London Township :

O R D E R

AND NOW

, this 20th day of April 202 3

, the appeal of David G. Szymanski
from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County’s order, docketed on December
6, 2021, is hereby DISMISSED

.

______________________________ STACY WALLACE , Judge