Borough of Youngsville v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Youngsville

• Decision Date: 06 October 1982
• Parties: BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, Appellant, v. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF the BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, Robert Matteo and Rosalie Matteo, Appellees.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 1086

450 A.2d 1086

69 Pa.Cmwlth. 282

BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, Appellant, v. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF the BOROUGH OF YOUNGSVILLE, Robert

Matteo and Rosalie Matteo, Appellees.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 3, 1982.

Decided Oct. 6, 1982.

Joseph C. Barnhart, Altomare & Barnhart, for appellant. Sumner E. Nichols, II, Dunn & Conner, for appellees, Robert Matteo and Rosalie Matteo.

Judges Rogers, Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Rogers dissents.

The appellant, the Borough of Youngsville (Borough), appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County which affirmed a decision of the Youngsville Zoning Hearing Board (Board) granting a certificate of occupancy to the appellees, Robert and Rosalie Matteo, and confirming the nonconforming use of a 27-unit trailer park on their property.

The appellees purchased the approximately five-acre tract involved here in 1978 for $ 18,500, having previously conferred with the Borough zoning officer and having received his approval for the trailer park which they proposed to develop. They thereafter invested an additional $ 18,000 for the construction of sewer lines. The Borough then objected to further development of the trailer park on the ground that the proposed use was not permitted by the zoning ordinance which the Borough had adopted in 1961. The appellees unsuccessfully sought to amend the ordinance and they finally requested a certificate of occupancy for the proposed trailer park from the Board. The Board granted the certificate of occupancy, having concluded that use of the property as a trailer park was permitted as a nonconforming use and, upon the Borough's appeal of that decision, the common pleas court affirmed the Board's determination. This appeal followed.

Where, as here, the court of common pleas has taken no additional evidence, our scope of review is limited to determining whether or not the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence and whether or not it abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Vitale v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Darby Township, 63 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 604, 438 A.2d 1016 (1982).

The Board based its decision mainly upon a 1967 letter from the Borough's solicitor to the Borough Council concerning this property,1 which stated in part:

1. A trailer court was established by the Hamiltons during the year 1959 and prior to the adoption of the Youngsville Borough Zoning Ordinance.

2. Work was done to adapt the property to a trailer court including installation of electricity, water and preparation of trailer sites.

3. The trailers were actually put on the premises and were there at least until the year 1963 when the last trailer, which belonged to one Hilbert, was removed.

4. No trailers have been on the premises since that time but the connections remained and the area was not used for any other purposes.

5. The entire premises have now been leased to a Raymond Larson and there are presently 4 trailers situated on the property.

The letter then went on to conclude that a trailer court existed as a nonconforming use and that there was no showing of a clear intent that it had been abandoned. The record reveals no indication of any relevant action by the Borough Council thereafter.

The Borough argues that the Board abused its discretion by relying on this letter in that the Board failed to make its own factual determinations and impermissibly deferred to the judgment of the former Borough solicitor.

It is true, of course, that a zoning hearing board must render an opinion delineating sufficient findings to support its conclusions in order to provide for meaningful judicial review. Lando v. Springettsbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 312, 286 A.2d 924 (1972). It is also true, however, that specific findings of fact are not required if the Board's opinion provides an adequate explanation of its resolution of the factual questions involved, Zoning Hearing Board v. Konyk, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 466, 290 A.2d 715 (1972), and if it sets forth the Board's reasoning in such a way as to demonstrate that its decision was reasoned and not arbitrary. Lando.

In the present case, the two opinions of the Board members in support of granting the certificate of occupancy ² both made clear that they were willing to agree with and to adopt as their own the factual conclusions contained in the 1967 letter because the letter was written at a time much closer to the occurrence of the events in question. While we would note that the better practice for a zoning hearing board is certainly to set out its own specific findings of fact, we cannot say that, in this particular case, the findings relied upon by the Board are so obscure as to preclude our review of its decision nor do we believe that the Board abused its discretion by relying on them.

The Borough also argues that the record does not contain substantial evidence of the existence of the trailer park prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1961 because the 1967 letter "merely assumes" that such was the case without citing any facts to support that assumption, and was evidence only of the Borough's perception in 1967 of the status of the property.

Determinations as to the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to evidence are matters left solely to the Board in the performance of its factfinding role. Even if the letter in question amounted to hearsay, our review of the record reveals that no objection was made to its admission and the Board was therefore permitted to give it its natural probative value. And, inasmuch as the letter specifically stated that a trailer court had been established in 1959, and in the absence of any objection to the introduction of this document, we believe that it constituted substantial evidence in support of the Board's conclusion.

Moreover, the Borough itself introduced evidence which would support a finding that use of the property as a trailer park had predated the zoning ordinance. Section 51 of the Borough's zoning ordinance of 1961 defines "trailer park" as "[a] lot or premises occupied or designed for occupancy by two (2) or more house trailers," and a witness for the Borough testified that only one trailer house was on the subject property before 1961, but that prior to that year the owner of the premises had installed a septic system capable of servicing two trailers. This testimony itself establishes that, prior to enactment of the zoning ordinance, the property had been "designed for occupancy by two or more house trailers," and that it therefore came within the ordinance's definition of "trailer park." This testimony, as well as the findings contained in the 1967 Borough solicitor's letter, convince us that the Board did not err in concluding that the existence of the trailer park on the property was a permissible nonconforming use.

The Borough next contends that no trailers were on this property for at least a four-year period from 1963 to 1967 and that its use as a trailer park must therefore be considered to have been abandoned under the provisions of Section 148 of the ordinance which provides that a nonconforming use has been abandoned if it "has been discontinued for a period of six (6) months."

Abandonment of a nonconforming use, of course, is a question of fact which depends upon all the facts present in a case and which the Borough has the burden of proving. Kuhl v. Zoning Hearing Board of Greene Township, 52 Pa....