Court Opinion

ID: 9866910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 14:09:33.516901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:46.147911
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan Notaro and Vincent Fayock,     :
                          Appellants :
                                     : No. 571 C.D. 2022
            v.                       : Submitted: April 28, 2023
                                     :
Hazleton City Zoning Hearing Board, :
John Caputo, and Kathryn Caputo      :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                    FILED: September 26, 2023

        Susan Notaro and Vincent Fayock (Objectors) appeal from the April 26, 2022
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (Common Pleas) denying
their appeal of the October 21, 2019 decision of the Zoning Hearing Board (Board)
of Hazleton City (City), which granted John Caputo’s and Kathryn Caputo’s
(collectively, the Caputos) application for a special exception to construct four
garden apartment buildings on a property they own in the City (the Property). On
appeal, Objectors argue the Board violated the Sunshine Act1 by voting on the
Caputos’ two separate proposals outside of a public meeting and the Board abused

1
    65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701-716.
its discretion in calculating the available density for a second principal use. Upon
review, we affirm.
                                     I.      Background
       On June 24, 2019, the Caputos submitted a zoning permit application to the
City for the construction of four garden apartment buildings, each containing six
apartment units, on the Property. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 157a-62a. The
City’s Zoning Officer (Zoning Officer) denied the Caputos’ application, reasoning
that the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance)2, 3 required the Caputos to apply for
and obtain a special exception for the garden apartments from the Board. Id. at 164a-
67a. The Caputos then filed a zoning appeal application4 with the Board, wherein
the Caputos appealed the Zoning Officer’s determination and requested a special
exception for the garden apartments. Id. at 168a. The Board then held several
hearings on the Caputos’ zoning appeal application.
       At the Board’s first hearing, which it held on August 1, 2019, the Zoning
Officer and John Caputo (Mr. Caputo) testified. See R.R. at 89a. After discussing
some issues with the height and positioning of the Caputos’ proposed garden
apartment buildings, the Board continued the hearing to allow the Caputos to file an
amended application. Id. at 100a. On August 13, 2019, the Caputos filed an
amended application, which contained two separate building height and positioning
proposals. Id. at 173a-76a.

2
   Hazleton City, Pa., Zoning Ordinance (1995), as amended.
3
   The Zoning Officer also initially denied the Caputos’ application because the Caputos needed
to obtain a height variance. R.R. at 164a. By subsequent letter, however, the Zoning Officer
explained that a “height variance is not required” under the Ordinance. Id. at 166a.
4
   The Zoning Officer provided the Caputos with a form entitled “Zoning Appeal Application,”
which the Caputos utilized to appeal the Zoning Officer’s determination and to apply for a special
exception. See R.R. at 137a, 168a.

                                                2
       On September 5, 2019, the Board held its second hearing in this matter. R.R.
at 104a. Mr. Caputo and the Zoning Officer testified again regarding the Caputos’
desired use of the Property and the details of their two proposals. See id. at 104a-
41a. Mr. Caputo explained that the Property has a total of 124,800 square feet,
21,624 square feet of which is occupied by existing buildings and 10,696 square feet
of which the Caputos propose to occupy with the four garden apartment buildings.
Id. at 110a-11a. Mr. Caputo submitted a density calculation which showed his
proposed garden apartments complied with the Ordinance’s density requirements.
Id. at 110a. The Zoning Officer opined that each of the Caputos’ two proposals
satisfied the Ordinance’s requirements, including the density requirements. Id. at
133a-41a. The Zoning Officer admitted that Mr. Caputo’s density calculation was
based off of the entire lot size, including areas that are occupied by existing
structures. Id. at 137a-38a. Nevertheless, the Zoning Officer explained that the
Ordinance permitted the density calculation to include the entire lot size because it
is based on total acreage and the Ordinance permits more than one principal use on
a single parcel by special exception. Id. at 138a. At the conclusion of the September
5, 2019 hearing, the Board’s chairman indicated the Board would reconvene on
September 19, 2019, to issue a decision. Id. at 143a.
       On September 19, 2019, a quorum5 of the Board met to consider this matter.
R.R. at 183a. Following an executive session, the Board resumed its public meeting
and the Board’s chairman moved that the Board approve the Caputos’ application
for a special exception, subject to several conditions,6 to construct four garden
apartment buildings on the Property. Id. at 185a. The motion was seconded, and all

5
   Three Board members were present, while two Board members were absent. R.R. at 183a.
6
   We need not set forth these conditions in detail, as they are not relevant to the issues Objectors
raised on appeal.

                                                 3
present Board members voted in favor of the motion. Id. at 185a-86a. The Board
did not specify at this hearing that it was only approving one of the Caputos’ two
proposals for building height and positioning. Id.
       The Board issued written findings of fact and conclusions of law on October
21, 2019. R.R. at 145a-54a. Relevant to this appeal, the Board concluded the
Caputos met the Ordinance’s general standards for a special exception, as well as
the specific requirements for the garden apartments. Id. at 151a-54a. With regard
to the density requirement,7 the Board did not detail which calculation it utilized, but
simply noted that “[i]t is the opinion of the [Board] . . . that the density requirement
. . . has been met.” Id. at 153a. The Board approved the Caputos’ first proposed
option for construction of the garden apartments on the Property, subject to several
conditions. Id. at 154a.
       Objectors appealed the Board’s decision to Common Pleas, raising numerous
allegations of error in addition to those they raised in this appeal. Common Pleas,
which did not take additional evidence in this matter, denied Objectors’ appeal. R.R.
at 237a-52a. Relevant to this appeal,8 Common Pleas determined Objectors failed
to satisfy their burden of proof to establish the Board violated the Sunshine Act,
because the Board voted and made an oral decision at an open meeting. Id. at 243a-

7
    The density requirement for the garden apartments states that “the maximum number of
dwelling units per gross acre of land permitted for this use is fifteen (15).” Ordinance Art. VIII, §
2.21(f).
8
    Objectors did not preserve several of their original allegations of error, because they only
addressed the Board’s purported Sunshine Act violation and error in calculating the available
density in their Brief in this matter. See Pa.R.A.P. 2216(a) (“No question will be considered unless
it is stated in the [S]tatement of [Q]uestions [I]nvolved or is fairly suggested thereby.”); Kalmeyer
v. Mun. of Penn Hills, 197 A.3d 1275, 1279 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“Issues not included in the
Statement of Questions [Involved] are waived and need not be considered by the Court even if
they are addressed in the argument section of the brief”). Accordingly, we need only discuss
Common Pleas’ analysis of the two issues Objectors preserved for this appeal.

                                                 4
44a. Concluding the Board’s findings did not constitute an error of law or an abuse
of discretion, Common Pleas refused to “substitute its judgment for that of the
Board” with respect to whether the Caputos had proven they met the Ordinance’s
density requirements for the garden apartments. Id. at 247a.
      Objectors appealed Common Pleas’ decision to this Court.           On appeal,
Objectors first argue the Board must have conducted deliberations and decision
making in private in violation of the Sunshine Act, because the Board’s public vote
and determination did not specify which of the Caputos’ two proposals the Board
was approving, yet its subsequent written decision specified it was approving the
Caputos’ first proposal. See Appellants’ Br. at 14-20. Objectors second argument
is that the Board abused its discretion by permitting “land already committed to one
principle [sic] use to be used in calculating allowable density of a second principal
use.” Id. at 12, 21-27.
                                  II.    Analysis
      Since “Common Pleas did not take additional evidence in this zoning appeal,”
this Court’s role “is limited to reviewing the [Board]’s decision, not that of Common
Pleas.” Dowds v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 242 A.3d 683, 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020).
Thus, we evaluate whether the Board committed an error of law or abused its
discretion. Id. With regard to whether the Board committed an error of law, we
conduct a de novo review and “are not bound by the legal conclusions of the
governing body or lower court[].” EQT Prod. Co. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, 208
A.3d 1010, 1025 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted). With regard to whether the Board
abused its discretion, we will find an abuse of discretion “whenever the findings of
the governing body are not supported by substantial evidence.”          Id. at 1024.
Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

                                         5
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gorsline v. Bd. of Supervisors of Fairfield
Twp., 186 A.3d 375, 385 (Pa. 2018).
A.     Sunshine Act
       The party alleging a violation of the Sunshine Act carries the burden of proof
to establish a violation. Kennedy v. Upper Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 834
A.2d 1104, 1123 (Pa. 2003) (citation omitted). To carry its burden, the party must
overcome a “presumption of regularity and legality that obtains in connection with
proceedings of local agencies.” Id.
       Objectors argue the Board violated Sections 704 and 705 of the Sunshine Act
by deliberating and voting to approve the Caputos’ first proposal outside its public
meeting. To support their argument, Objectors note that the Board’s public vote was
to generally approve the Caputos’ application, whereas the Board’s subsequent
written decision approved the first proposal (of two) the Caputos included in their
application. Objectors believe the two proposals were essentially two separate
applications, and, therefore, the Board needed to vote publicly for each proposal.
       Since Objectors rely on Sections 704 and 705 of the Sunshine Act, we begin
by examining those sections. Section 704 of the Sunshine Act provides:

       Official action[9] and deliberations[10] by a quorum of the members of an
       agency shall take place at a meeting open to the public unless closed
       under section 707 (relating to exceptions to open meetings), 708
       (relating to executive sessions) or 712 (relating to General Assembly
       meetings covered).

9
   Section 703 of the Sunshine Act defines an “[o]fficial action” as including “[t]he decisions on
agency business made by an agency,” and “[t]he vote taken by any agency on any motion,
proposal, resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, report or order.” 65 Pa.C.S. § 703.
10
   Section 703 of the Sunshine Act defines “[d]eliberation” as “[t]he discussion of agency business
held for the purpose of making a decision.” Id.

                                                6
65 Pa.C.S. § 704. Section 705 of the Sunshine Act requires votes at agency meetings
to be “publicly cast, and in the case of all roll call votes, recorded.” 65 Pa.C.S. §
705. Deliberations of zoning hearing boards “are a proper subject of a private
executive session,” under Section 708 of the Sunshine Act, because “[a]s an agency
characterized predominantly by judicial characteristics and functions, it is
particularly appropriate for zoning boards to deliberate privately.” Kennedy, 834
A.2d at 1115, 1123.
      Since the Sunshine Act requires “official action” to be taken at a public
meeting, the oral votes of a zoning hearing board constitute the “official action.” See
Bruno v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 664 A.2d 1077, 1079 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1995). Thus, a zoning hearing board’s written decision is not considered
an “official action” and does not need to be issued during a public meeting. Id.
While a written decision “permits appellate courts to perform meaningful review of
[a zoning hearing board’s] decision,” it is the zoning hearing board’s oral vote that
controls when it conflicts with the zoning hearing board’s written decision. Id.
      Here, the Board complied with the requirements of the Sunshine Act because
it publicly voted to approve the Caputos’ application for a special exception and
recorded each Board member’s vote. While the Caputos’ application for a special
exception included two separate proposals for the Board’s consideration, the Board’s
oral vote approved the Caputos’ application generally. Thus, the Board’s oral
decision gave the Caputos the ability to proceed with whichever option they desired.
      Since the Board’s oral vote is its official action rather than the Board’s later
written decision, we need not address whether the Board may have violated the
Sunshine Act in developing its written decision. See Bruno, 664 A.2d at 1079.
Objectors have not presented any evidence to overcome the presumption the Board

                                          7
complied with the Sunshine Act in taking its official action.11 Accordingly, we
conclude the Board did not violate the Sunshine Act.
B.     Density
       Article VIII, Section 2.21(f) of the Ordinance establishes that “the maximum
number of dwelling units per gross acre of land [for the garden apartments] is fifteen
(15).” Ordinance Art. VIII, § 2.21(f). Objectors argue the Board abused its
discretion by approving the Caputos’ application since the Caputos used land already
devoted to an existing principal use in calculating available density for its garden
apartments. Appellants’ Br. at 21. The Zoning Officer testified that he believed the
Caputos’ calculation was permissible under the Ordinance because the Ordinance’s
density calculation is based on gross acres of land and the Ordinance permits more
than one principal use on the same parcel by special exception. R.R. at 138a. The
Board, without endorsing a specific density calculation, determined the Caputos’
application met the Ordinance’s density requirements. Id. at 153a.
       “A zoning hearing board’s interpretation of its own zoning ordinance is
entitled to great weight and deference[,] . . . because a zoning hearing board, as the
entity charged with administering a zoning ordinance, possesses knowledge and
expertise in interpreting the ordinance.” City of Hope v. Sadsbury Twp. Zoning
Hearing Bd., 890 A.2d 1137, 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Likewise, a zoning officer’s
interpretation is given weight unless it is clearly erroneous. Bethlehem Manor

11
   Instead, the evidence in this matter supports the Board’s oral decision. The Board expressed
concerns at its first hearing regarding the height and building orientation in the Caputos’ original
application. The Caputos then submitted an amended application, which included two separate
building height and orientation options. At the Board’s second hearing, Mr. Caputo and the Zoning
Officer both testified that each of the Caputos’ proposals in their amended application complied
with the Ordinance. Thus, generally approving the application would not be unreasonable.

                                                 8
Village, LLC. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of City of Bethlehem, 251 A.3d 448, 459 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021) (citation omitted).
      Here, the density requirement specifically refers to gross acres of land. See
Ordinance Art. VIII, § 2.21(f). Although the Ordinance does not define gross
acreage, the word “gross” is commonly defined as “overall total exclusive of
deductions.” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gross (last visited
September 25, 2023). Thus, the Zoning Officer’s determination that the Board did
not need to deduct land from the parcel’s overall size in completing its density
calculation was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we conclude the Board did not
abuse its discretion in applying the Ordinance’s density calculation for the garden
apartments.
                                III.   Conclusion
      For the reasons set forth above, we affirm Common Pleas’ order denying
Objectors’ appeal of the Board’s October 21, 2019 decision.

                                            ______________________________
                                            STACY WALLACE, Judge

                                        9
        IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susan Notaro and Vincent Fayock,     :
                          Appellants :
                                     :
            v.                       : No. 571 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Hazleton City Zoning Hearing Board, :
John Caputo, and Kathryn Caputo      :

                                 ORDER

     AND NOW, this 26th day of September 2023, the April 26, 2022 order of the
Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County is AFFIRMED.

                                     ______________________________
                                     STACY WALLACE, Judge