2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
9-23-2003 

# H ol l a nd T r a ns p I nc v . U pp e r C hiches t e r T

wp P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-4221

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" H o l l a nd T

r a n sp I nc v

. U ppe r C hiche s t e r T

wp " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 261. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/261NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_____________ NO. 02-4221

________________ HOLLAND TRANSPORT, INC. and HOLLAND MULCH, I NC. App ellants

v. UPPER CHICHESTER TOWNSHIP, THOMAS C. ROBERTS, WILLIAM E. BURLA ND, III , RICHARD T. CURRY , THOMA S J. WENGER, JOHN J. WILLS, STEP HEN E. BARRAR, LAWRENCE M. S PEDDE N, THOMAS FE RRO, BETH H. ZENUK , ZONING HEA RING BOA RD OF U PPER CHICHESTE R TOW NSHIP, TH ER ESA R. GU YE R, JA ME S SQ UA DR ITO , CHA RL ES R EM AL EY , and LE WIS KNAUER, Appellees

____________________________________ On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For th e Ea stern D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. 00-cv- 00397) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Michael M. Bay lson

_______________________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 8, 2003 Befo re : BARRY, BECKER, and GREENBERG

Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: Septe mber 23, 2003)

_______________________

OPI NION

_______________________2

BECKER, Circuit

Judge. This is an appeal byplaint iffs, Holland Transpor

tati on, Inc. and Holland Mulch, Inc. fr om the District Court ’s grant of summary j udgment in a cas e brought byplaint iffs challe ngin g certa in land use d ecision s of th e def enda nts – U pper Ch icheste r Tow nship and a num ber o f its off icials. Th e case has a long and to rtuou s proc edur al history w ith which the parties are int imatel y fami liar

and which need not be rescri bed here. Judge Baylso n dism issed th e com plaint o n ripen ess gro und s. W e think that he wa s corre ct in doi ng s o. 

### Ri pe ne ss in th is co nt ex t i s g ov er ne d b y Willi amson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) , which st ands for the

propositi on that in c ases involving use of l and and a cha llenge t o a zoning dec ision, a

claim will not be ripe until the plaintiff has given the local municipality

the opportunity to iss ue a final decision on the application of its zonin g ordinan ce to the prop erty in question. Id. at 186. We have recognized that, in a Pennsy lvania Municipality , the ability to render final zoning d ecisions is vested in the Zonin g Hearing B oard (“ZH B”) pursuan t to Pennsylvania’s Mun icipalities Plannin g Code. Taylor Inv., Ltd. v. Upper Darby Townsh ip , 983 F.2d 1285, 1291-93 ( 3d Cir. 1993). Holland ar gues that its cl aim i s ripe because it appeared before the ZHB regarding Site A, and the ZHB issued a final decision rega rding that site (a d enial). However, Holland appea led thisdecisi on to the Del aware Count y Cour t of3



### Common Pleas wh ere Judge Ba ttle reversed the Z HB, find ing that it had abused its discre tion by labeling Holland’smulch bus iness a s a “collecti on facility ” rathe r than a “proces sing facility .” Judge Ba ttle t hen remanded the c ase to t he ZHB for dete

rmina tion of one specific iss ue. The m unicipal regulat ions requi re a “150- foot setba

ck” from reside ntial pr opertie s for facilitie s of this s ort. Ther e is som e ambi guity

as to whet

her the facility itself

must be 150 feet from a res idential property , or whether the property on which the fa cility sits must be 150 feet from

a resi dential

property . Holland di d not renew its argu ment before the ZHB becau se, it argues, the ZH B had alread y decided this issue (in favo r of the “pr operty” interpretation). The Distr ict Court concluded t

hat the r emand e ssenti ally

made t he ZHB’s pri or “final decision ” not final an ymore, reasoning that, even if the ZHB had previo usly decided in favor of the “property ” inter pretat ion rathe r than the “facility locati on” interpr etati on, the Court

of Common Pleas’ r

eversa l of other c omponentsof its holding might ca use t he ZHB t o rec onsider t

hat on e as well . (Pe

rhapsif the

ZHB views Holland’s facility

as a “processing facility ,” its conclusion regarding the 150-foot setback will change.) We think t

hat a remand for c onsidera tion of an is sue rende

rs nonfinal

any decisi on on that issue, in which case H olland had a duty to renew its action b efore the Z HB. It did not do so, which means that its cl aim is not ripe. The same conclusion obtains for Sites B and C, w here Holland never even petitioned th e ZHB fo r a resolution, claiming that to1 

### Blanche Road held that zoning ripe

ness wasnot requir

ed when: Defenda nts acting in their cap acity as officers of the to wnship, d eliberately andimproperly interfered with th e proces s by which the township issued permits in order t

o block or to dela y t

he issua nce of plaintiffs’ pe

rmit s, and that the defenda

nts did so for

reasonsunrelat

ed to the m

eritsof the appli cation for permits. Such acti ons, if proven, are sufficient to establish a subs tantive due processviolati on, actionable un der § 198 3, even if the u ltimat e ou tcome of plaintiffs’ permit applic ations was favorable.

2 Alternat ively , we agree wit

h Judge Bayl son that

a 

### separate basisfor granting summary judgment is th at granting H olland the relief it sought (a p ermit) would nece ssarily entail setting aside t

he judgment o f the Cou rt of Common P leas, which instru cted Holland to file a La nd Use Devel opment Pl an in connection with Si te B. In r eversing, we would be 4 

### do so would have been futile given the perceived persecution by County Commissioners that would give rise

to a futil ity excepti on to ripene ss. But we have not recognized t

he futility exception in lan d use cases. Holland spe

nds a grea

t deal of t ime a rguing that

our decis ion in Blanche Road Corp. v. Ben salem Tow nship , 57 F.3d 253 (3d Cir . 1995), precludes di smis sal of Holland’s claimseven if they a re not ripe. 1 

### However, while thiscase wa s being bri efed, Blanche Road

was super seded. We held in United Artist Theater Circuit, Inc. v. Tonwship of War

rington, Pa. , 316 F.3d 392 (3d C ir. 2003), that the Supreme Court’s decisi on in County o

f Sacramen to v. Lewis , 523 U. S. 833 ( 1998), requi res that we employ a “shocks the conscience” st andard instead of an “improper interfer ence standard.” Holland concedes that thisis now the controlling case, and ma kes an argument that wh at happene d in this case sho cks the conscie nce. It does no t. The judgment

of the Dist

rict Cour t will be affirm ed. 2

### overturning the judg ment of a state cou rt that a Land U se Development P lan was a

prudent request on the part of the Commiss ioners, and the Rooker-Fe ldman doctrine prevents us from doing so , see D.C. Court of Appeal s v. Fel dman , 460 U.S. 462, 482 n.16 (1983), a

nd Rooker v. Fid. Trust

Co. , 263 U.S . 413 (19 23). 56

TO THE C LERK: Please fi le the foregoing opi nion.

/s/ Edw ard R. B ecker Circuit

Judge