Court Opinion

ID: 9914502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 15:06:47.445832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:19.102597
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Waterloo Associates, LLC, General          :
Partner of Waterloo Complex, LP, a         :
Pennsylvania Limited Partnership,          :
                        Appellant          :
                                           :
                    v.                     :   No. 900 C.D. 2022
                                           :   Submitted: November 6, 2023
Easttown Township                          :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
             HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
             HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER                 FILED: January 2, 2024

      Waterloo Associates, LLC (Waterloo) appeals from an Order and
Memorandum of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County (trial court) finding
in favor of Easttown Township (Township) in Waterloo’s action in mandamus.
After review, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal as Waterloo did not file post-
trial motions and, therefore, did not preserve its issues on appeal to this Court.
      Waterloo owns property currently known as 709 Berwyn Avenue (the
Property). The Property’s deed indicates that there are two lots. Waterloo wishes
to have separate addresses for each lot “to build side-by-side duplexes.” (Order &
Memorandum (Memo.) at 3.) “The [l]ots for the past century or more have been
used as a single building on one of the lots and a parking lot adjacent in the other lot
servicing, at least in part, the building.” (Id.) Waterloo applied for a second address
and the Township denied the application, advising Waterloo that it must apply for a
subdivision. (Id.) Waterloo filed the mandamus action in question seeking to have
its address granted without proceeding through the subdivision process based upon
Section 285-4 of the Easttown Township Code1. The trial court held a bench trial
on March 28, 2022, and afterwards issued an order on March 29, 2022, directing the
parties to file revised proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. On April
18, 2022, the trial court issued its Order and Memorandum finding for the Township.
The trial court first analyzed whether Waterloo exhausted its remedies before
bringing the mandamus action:

       [Section 909.1(a)(3) of t]he [Pennsylvania] Municipalities Planning
       Code (MPC)[2] provides that zoning hearing boards have “exclusive
       jurisdiction to hear and render adjudications” in matters including
       “[a]ppeals from that determination of the zoning officer, including, but
       not limited to, the granting or denial of any permit, or failure to act on
       the application therefor. . . .” 53 P.S. § 10909.1(a)(3) (emphasis added).
       Additionally, following any such appeal to the zoning hearing board,
       the MPC provides that “all appeals from all land use” decisions shall
       be taken to the trial court and “shall be filed within 30 days after the
       entry of the decision.” [Section 1002-A of the MPC,] 53 P.S. § 11002-
       A.[3]. . . .

       Waterloo received a denial of an application.[4] The MPC in 53 P.S.
       § 10909.1(a)(3) is clear that the remedy is to file an appeal to the zoning
       hearing board. Moreover, the [T]ownship [C]ode states: “The Zoning
       Hearing Board shall hear and decide applications in accordance with
       and pursuant to the [MPC] and shall have all powers set forth therein,
       including but not limited to the following: . . . (3) appeals from
       determinations of the Zoning Officer, including but not limited to the
       granting or denial of any permit or failure to act on the application
       therefore. . . .” Easttown Township Code [§] 455-110(a)(2).

       1
         EASTTOWN TOWNSHIP CODE, as amended (2014).
       2
         Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended. Section 909.1 was added by Section 87 of
the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329.
       3
         Section 1002-A was added by Section 101 of the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329.
       4
         Although the trial court stated here that Waterloo’s application was denied, earlier in its
Order and Memorandum, it stated the application was either denied by the Township or withdrawn
by Waterloo. (Order & Memo. at 4.)

                                                 2
(Order & Memo. at 7-8.) Because Waterloo did not appeal to the zoning hearing
board, the trial court concluded that Waterloo did not exhaust its administrative
remedies. (Id.) Notwithstanding this conclusion, the trial court continued to analyze
the elements of mandamus, starting with establishing a clear right to relief.

      To the extent that an argument is made that Easttown Township Code
      § 285-4(A) applies to the [] [P]roperty — “[s]treet address
      identification number(s) shall be assigned to each lot or parcel of land
      upon which is constructed or located one or more principal buildings”
      — such argument is inapplicable as only one of the [l]ots has a principal
      building and it has an assigned street address — 709 Berwyn Ave.,
      Berwyn, PA. Accordingly, there is no mandate for the zoning officer
      to assign a street address with this fact set. . . .

      ....

      [The Township] suggests that subdivision is the proper path for
      Waterloo to pursue to receive a new address pursuant to Section 285-
      4(B). Waterloo contends that it need not pursue a subdivision due to
      the fact that the [l]ots were historically deeded separately and described
      separately in the 2005 Deed (and prior deeds). [The Township]
      counters that no separate lot or parcel has been created or is shown by
      the [l]ot [o]ne and [l]ot [t]wo descriptions as the Subdivision and Land
      Development Ordinance (SALDO) for the [T]ownship defines a “lot”
      as established by a plat — and a “plat” as a map or plan of a subdivision
      or land development. SALDO, § 400-6. The 2005 Deed and its
      predecessors do not contain a legal description referencing a survey or
      approved plan creating or identify lots for the [l]ots (nor was it created
      as a result of a subdivision or land development plan approval).

(Order & Memo. at 9-10.) While the parties argued this matter was controlled by
caselaw, the trial court found those cases did not show that Waterloo was legally
entitled to a street address. (Id. at 12.) Rather, the trial court found that “the more
applicable section of the [Easttown] Township Code for a street address assignment
given the lack of a subdivision may be Section 285-5. . . . [It] specifically provides
for discretion of the zoning officer in assigning a new number in determining if just

                                          3
cause exists.” (Id. at 12-13.) Since the zoning officer here denied Waterloo a second
street address in his discretion, the trial court concluded that Waterloo did not show
it was entitled to mandamus relief. (Id. at 13.) On May 26, 2022, Waterloo filed a
notice of appeal.5
       On appeal to this Court, Waterloo argues two points of error. First, Waterloo
contends the trial court erred in finding that Waterloo failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies. (Waterloo’s Brief (Br.) at 9-11.) Second, Waterloo argues
the trial court erred in its reading of Section 285-4(B) of the Easttown Township
Code. Specifically, Waterloo contends that the trial court erred in its reading of the
definition of a “plat.” (Waterloo’s Br. at 11.) Waterloo also cites Springfield
Township v. Halderman, 840 A.2d 528 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), in support of its
argument that it is legally entitled to an address for the second lot of the Property.
(Id. at 14.)
       Preliminarily, however, we must address whether Waterloo preserved any
issues on appeal to this Court as Waterloo did not file post-trial motions pursuant to
Rule 227.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1,6
following the trial court’s Order and Memorandum. Waterloo asks that it “be
excused” for not filing post-trial motions and alternatively argues that the trial
court’s order on March 29, 2022, directing the parties to file proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law, “could be interpreted as having fulfilled the goal of Rule
227.1.” (Waterloo’s Br. at 2.) Waterloo explains that if this Court were to find that
Waterloo was required to file post-trial motions, the trial court’s request for revised

       5
          The matter was initially appealed to the Superior Court, which transferred the appeal to
this Court by order dated July 18, 2022.
        6
          This Court issued an order on September 21, 2022, directing the parties to address in their
briefs on the merits whether Waterloo preserved any issues for appeal as the record indicated that
Waterloo did not file post-trial motions.

                                                 4
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law would be rendered “pointless as
everything known to [Waterloo] was [as] well articulated as possible to that [c]ourt
in pre-trial filings, the trial itself[,] and the post-trial writing that the [trial c]ourt
[o]rdered.” (Id. at 3.) Essentially, Waterloo argues that its proposed findings of
facts and conclusions of law should be considered equivalent to a post-trial motion.
(Id. at 4.) The Township responds that “[c]ase law on this point is clear that issues
not raised in post-trial motions are waived for appeal.” (Township’s Br. at 20.) In
addition, the Township contends “the [t]rial [c]ourt’s judg[]ment was not ‘final’ as
Waterloo claims because there was no verdict as of March 29, 2022.” (Id. at 22.)
       Rule 227.1(c)(2) provides that “[p]ost-trial motions shall be filed within ten
days after. . . the filing of the decision in the case of a trial without jury.” Pa.R.Civ.P.
227.1(c)(2). “If an issue has not been raised in a post-trial motion, it is waived for
appeal purposes.” L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enters., Inc., 710 A.2d 55, 55 (Pa. 1998).
Further, “[t]he purpose for Rule 227.1 is to provide the trial court with an opportunity
to correct errors in its ruling and avert the need for appellate review.” Goshen Valley
III Condo. Ass’n v. Messick, 299 A.3d 1064, 1067 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (citing
Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491, 494 n.9 (Pa. 2002)). “[A] trial court’s order at the
conclusion of trial . . . simply cannot become final for purposes of filing an appeal
until the court decides any post-trial motions.” Goshen Valley, 299 A.3d at 1068.
       This proceeding was a non-jury trial before the trial court in a mandamus
action and, thus, falls into the gambit of Rule 227.1. See Gaughen LLC v. Borough
Council of Borough of Mechanicsburg, 128 A.3d 355, 361 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)
(“Although post-trial motions are not required in appeals from the final adjudications
or determination of local agencies, post-trial motions are required in mandamus
actions.”) (citations omitted); see also Chalkey, 805 A.2d at 497 (holding that post-

                                             5
trial motions must be filed from actions in law and in equity). Waterloo argues that
its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law satisfy the purpose of Rule
227.1; however, the purpose is to give the trial court a chance “to correct errors in
its ruling” in order to avoid an appeal. Goshen Valley, 299 A.3d at 1067 (emphasis
added). This purpose was not effectuated by Waterloo’s filing of proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law because the March 29, 2022 order was simply not a
ruling. Waterloo did not know what the trial court’s ruling was going to be at the
time of the March 29, 2022 order, and, therefore, it could not have addressed the trial
court’s potential errors. The trial court’s ruling was in its April 18, 2022 Order and
Memorandum, and Waterloo should have filed post-trial motions within 10 days.
Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.1. At that time, Waterloo had the ruling and reasoning of the trial
court, from which Waterloo could address any errors that it believed the trial court
made. The trial court would have had an opportunity to correct any of those errors
and make a final ruling based on Waterloo’s post-trial motions, which would have
then been appealable to this Court. Without filing post-trial motions, the trial court’s
April 18, 2022 Order and Memorandum cannot be considered a final ruling
appealable to this Court. Goshen Valley, 299 A.3d at 1068.
      In conclusion, this mandamus action proceeded as a non-jury trial and the trial
court’s April 18, 2022 Order and Memorandum was the decision upon which
Waterloo was required to file post-trial motions to preserve its issues before this
Court. As Waterloo did not comply with Rule 227.1, we are constrained to dismiss
its appeal.

                                        __________________________________________
                                        RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

                                           6
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Waterloo Associates, LLC, General      :
Partner of Waterloo Complex, LP, a     :
Pennsylvania Limited Partnership,      :
                        Appellant      :
                                       :
                  v.                   :   No. 900 C.D. 2022
                                       :
Easttown Township                      :

                                 ORDER

      NOW, January 2, 2024, the appeal of Waterloo Associates, LLC, General
Partner of Waterloo Complex, LP, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, is
DISMISSED.

                                     __________________________________________
                                     RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge