Court Opinion

ID: 9839200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 14:08:57.467471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:37.551534
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

McCafferty Hyundai Sales, Inc.     :
and The Kenneth F. Plunto          :
Family Trust,                      :
                 Appellants        :
                                   :
           v.                      :
                                   :
Middletown Township Zoning Hearing :
Board and Middletown Township and :                No. 88 C.D. 2022
Premier Media, LLC                 :               Submitted: November 14, 2022

BEFORE:       HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
              HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
              HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                                FILED: September 12, 2023

              McCafferty Hyundai Sales, Inc. (Hyundai) and The Kenneth F. Plunto
Family Trust (Trust) (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the Bucks County
Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) January 11, 2022 order affirming the
Middletown Township (Township) Zoning Hearing Board’s (ZHB) decision that
denied Appellants’ permit appeal. Appellants present two issues for this Court’s
review: (1) whether the trial court erred by affirming the issuance of a permit for a
principal use within a right-of-way (ROW); and (2) whether the trial court erred by
failing to conclude that the Township and Premier Media, LLC (Premier)
(collectively, Appellees) disregarded the Township Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance)
and engaged in unlawful contract zoning.1 After review, this Court reverses.

       1
         Although Appellants challenge the trial court’s decision, this Court’s review of a ZHB
decision, where, as here, the trial court does not take any additional evidence, is limited to
              The Trust owns property located at 1106 E. Lincoln Highway,
Langhorne, Pennsylvania (Property). The Trust leases the Property to Hyundai, a
Pennsylvania corporation that is the tenant-in-possession of the Property and
operates an automobile dealership thereon.            The Township is a second-class
township located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Premier is a Pennsylvania limited
liability company. On June 15, 2020, Premier entered into a lease agreement (Lease
Agreement) with the Township for a portion of the Township-owned ROW at the
corner of South Flowers Mill Road and United States (U.S.) Route 1. The ROW
adjoins the Property leased by Hyundai. On that same day, the Township’s Board
of Supervisors approved the Lease Agreement. On June 29, 2020, in accordance
with the Lease Agreement, Premier submitted a zoning permit application, along
with applications for building and electrical permits (Permit Application) to the
Township seeking approval to erect a 16-foot tall, 300-square foot, one-sided digital
monument display billboard sign (Monument Display Sign)2 within the ROW.
              On July 28, 2020, the Township Zoning Department approved the
Permit Application, finding that it met the requirements of Section 2811(D) of the
Ordinance, Ordinance § 500-2811(D). On August 11, 2020, the Township granted

determining whether the ZHB abused its discretion or committed an error of law. See Friends of
Lackawanna v. Dunmore Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 186 A.3d 525, 531 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the [zoning hearing] board’s findings are not
supported by substantial evidence.” Id. “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached.” Id.
       2
         The Ordinance defines a Monument Display [Sign] as:
               An internally illuminated structure with display or copy faces that
               use a visual communication technology [], such as light-emitting
               diodes [] or other internal light sources, to communicate municipal,
               civic or emergency messaging, on-premises advertising, and/or
               commercial off-premises advertising. A monument display shall be
               capable of remotely or automatically changing displays. The
               portion of the monument display structure where the messaging or
               advertising is displayed is called the “active area.”
Ordinance § 500-2803; Reproduced Record at 332a.
                                              2
the Permit Application and issued, among other permits, zoning permit No. BC-
2020-001370 (Permit). On September 3, 2020, Appellants filed an appeal with the
ZHB challenging the Township’s issuance of the Permit to Premier. The ZHB held
hearings on October 28, November 18, and December 10, 2020.3 In addition to
Appellants, the ZHB granted party status to the Township and Premier. On January
22, 2021, the ZHB denied Appellants’ appeal. Appellants appealed to the trial court.
On January 11, 2022, the trial court affirmed the ZHB’s decision. Appellants
appealed to this Court.
              Initially, Section 2811(D) (“Signs permitted in commercial districts”)
of the Ordinance provides, in relevant part:

              Monument displays.
              (1) A monument display is permitted in the C Commercial
              District [(C District)] subject to the following regulations:
              (a) The monument display shall be located along Lincoln
              Highway (Business U.S. Route 1).
              (b) The monument display shall be located within:
              [1] Three hundred feet of the center of the intersection of
              Lincoln Highway (Business U.S. Route 1) and Oxford
              Valley Road ([State Route (]SR[)] 2029); or
              [2] Three hundred feet of the center of the intersection of
              Lincoln Highway (Business U.S. Route 1) and New
              Rodgers Road/Veterans Highway (SR 413).
              (c) A monument display may constitute another principal
              use on a lot.
              ....
              (i) Setbacks.

       3
        The ZHB hearings were properly advertised, pursuant to notice published in the Bucks
County Courier Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the Township, and pursuant to
conspicuous posting of the property.
                                             3
                [1] Maximum setback from the legal or existing [ROW].
                The nearest edge of the active area of a monument display
                shall be located no more than 35 feet from the edge of the
                legal or existing [ROW] of the roadway from which the
                monument display is intended to be primarily visible.
                [2] Minimum setback from existing residences. A
                monument display shall be a minimum of 400 feet from
                any existing single-family detached residence at the time
                a monument display permit application is submitted.

Ordinance § 500-2811(D); Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 348a-349a.
                Appellants first argue that the trial court erred as a matter of law, in
affirming the issuance of a permit for a principal use within a ROW, where the plain
language of the Ordinance allows and restricts principal uses only on a lot, such that
a permit for a principal use in the ROW violated the Ordinance and required
variances. Specifically, Appellants contend that the Permit for construction of a
principal use on the contractually created 300-square foot segment of the ROW
violated Sections 1502, 1503, 2808 and 2811 of the Ordinance, i.e., standards that a
lot may be used or occupied for the following uses and no other, and that all uses in
the C District meet the required lot area and required lot width. Appellees rejoin4
that a use must only be located on a tract of land. Appellees maintain that because
the ROW is a tract of land, the Monument Display Sign is a permitted use on the
ROW within the C District.
                This Court has explained:

                When interpreting a zoning ordinance, we apply the rules
                of statutory construction, with the primary mission of
                determining legislative intent, which is best indicated by
                the plain language of the statute. We recognize that “[a
                zoning hearing board’s] interpretation of its own zoning
                ordinance is entitled to great deference and weight.”
                Hafner v. Zoning Hearing [Bd.] of Allen [Twp.], 974 A.2d
                1204, 1210 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). As a general matter, the
                courts afford the interpretation proffered by a zoning

      4
          Premier filed a brief with this Court, which the Township joined thereafter.
                                                 4
             hearing board and/or a zoning officer some degree of
             deference.       However, if that interpretation is
             inconsistent with the plain language of the ordinance,
             the “interpretation carries little or no weight.” Malt
             Beverage Distributors [v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd.], 918
             A.2d [171,] 176 [(Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (en banc), aff’d, 974
             A.2d 1144 ([Pa.] 2009)]. This is because “a zoning board
             is not a legislative body, and it lacks authority to modify
             or amend the terms of a zoning ordinance.” Greth Dev[.]
             [Grp.], Inc. v. Zoning Hearing [Bd.] of Lower Heidelberg
             [Twp.], 918 A.2d 181, 187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

City of Clairton v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the City of Clairton, 246 A.3d 890, 909
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
             The preamble to Section 1502 (“Use regulations”) of the Ordinance
states, in relevant part: “A building may be erected or used and a lot may be used or
occupied for any of the following purposes and no other, provided that no use which
is noxious or hazardous shall be permitted . . . .” Ordinance § 500-1502; R.R. at
307a (emphasis added). Further, Section 1503 (“Area, dimensional and design
requirements”) of the Ordinance provides, in relevant part:

             [U]nless a greater area or dimensional regulation is stated
             in [Section] []1502 [of the Ordinance], [u]se regulations,
             for a specific use, all uses in the C District shall meet the
             following requirements:
             A. Minimum lot area: 20,000 square feet.
             B. Minimum lot width: 100 feet.

Ordinance § 500-1503; R.R. at 318a (emphasis added). Lastly, Section 2808(A)(3)
(“Permits; construction and maintenance; violations”) of the Ordinance requires, in
pertinent part:

             Before any permit is granted for the erection of a sign or
             sign structure, plans and specifications shall be filed with
             the Township, showing:
             ....

                                          5
            (e) The proposed location of the sign in relation to the
            boundaries of the lot upon which it is to be situated.
Ordinance § 500-2808(A)(3); R.R. at 339a (emphasis added).

            Importantly, Section 202 of the Ordinance defines a lot as:

            A parcel of land, used or set aside and available for use as
            the site of one or more buildings and any buildings
            accessory thereto or for any other purpose, in one
            ownership and not divided by a street, nor including any
            land within the limits of a public or private street
            [ROW] upon which said lot abuts, even if fee to such
            [ROW] is in the owner of the lot. A “lot” for the purpose
            of this chapter may or may not coincide with a lot of
            record.

Ordinance § 500-202; R.R. at 297a (emphasis added). A ROW is defined as “[l]and
set aside for use as a street, alley or other means of travel.” Ordinance § 500-202;
R.R. at 301a.
            The ZHB concluded:

            23. [Appellants] provided no compelling evidence that the
            proposed sign did not comply with the requirements set
            forth in [Section] []2811[(D)] [of the Ordinance]. Instead,
            [Appellants] averred that the proposed [M]onument
            [Display Sign] did not comply with Section[]
            [][]2811[(D)(1)(c)] and (i)[(1)] [of the Ordinance],
            because it would be located within the [] Township
            [ROW], rather than on a lot. [See R.R. at 50a-158a.]
            ....
            27. The ZHB concludes there are no provisions of the
            Ordinance that state that monument display signs are
            prohibited from being in the ROW or that a use must be
            located on a “lot” or can only be located on a “lot”.
            ....

            30. In sum, the Zoning Officer neither abused [his]
            discretion nor committed an error of law in denying the
            Application.

                                         6
ZHB Dec. at 11-12.

              However, a plain reading of Sections 1502 and 1503 of the Ordinance
makes clear that all uses in the C District must satisfy the lot width and area
requirements. See Ordinance §§ 500-1502, 500-1503; R.R. at 307a, 318a. Further,
Section 202 of the Ordinance expressly states that a lot does not include any parcel
of land “within the limits of a public or private street [ROW] upon which said lot
abuts, even if fee to such [ROW] is in the owner of the lot.” Ordinance § 500-202;
R.R. at 297a. Moreover, a ROW is specifically defined as “[l]and set aside for use
as a street, alley or other means of travel.” Ordinance § 500-202; R.R. at 301a.
              Because the ZHB’s interpretation of the above-quoted Ordinance “is
inconsistent with the plain language of the [O]rdinance, the [ZHB’s] ‘interpretation
carries little or no weight.’” City of Clairton, 246 A.3d at 909 (quoting Malt
Beverage Distributors, 918 A.2d at 176). Accordingly, the trial court erred in
affirming the ZHB’s issuance of the Permit for a principal use in a ROW.5
              For all of the above reasons, the trial court’s order is reversed.

                                            _________________________________
                                            ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

       5
        Given this Court’s disposition of Appellants’ first issue, it does not reach Appellants’
remaining issue.

                                               7
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

McCafferty Hyundai Sales, Inc.     :
and The Kenneth F. Plunto          :
Family Trust,                      :
                 Appellants        :
                                   :
           v.                      :
                                   :
Middletown Township Zoning Hearing :
Board and Middletown Township and :       No. 88 C.D. 2022
Premier Media, LLC                 :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2023, the Bucks County
Common Pleas Court’s January 11, 2022 order is reversed.

                                    _________________________________
                                    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge