In re Chester Cnty. Outdoor, LLC
| Docket Number | 1142 C.D. 2021 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Parties | Appeal of Chester County Outdoor, LLC from the Decision of the East Pikeland Township Zoning Hearing Board Dated March 23, 2016 Appeal of: East Pikeland Township |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
East Pikeland Township (Township) appeals from the order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) in favor of Chester County Outdoor, LLC (Outdoor), following this Court's remand. Township primarily challenges the trial court's reasoning in permitting Outdoor to erect the billboard at issue. We affirm.
Because we write for the parties, we presume they are familiar with the extensive litigation of this case, which began in 2011. See generally Chester Cnty. Outdoor, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of E. Pikeland Twp., 123 A.3d 806, 807 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Outdoor I); Appeal of Chester Cnty. Outdoor, LLC, 167 A.3d 280, 282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Outdoor II). Briefly, Outdoor is a billboard company and leases property in Township on Route 23, which is near the intersection of Route 724. Outdoor has been trying to build a billboard on the property since 2011.
Outdoor contended that Township's zoning ordinance (Ordinance) improperly excluded billboards. Outdoor II, 167 A.3d at 282. Township and Township's Zoning Hearing Board (Board) agreed. Id. at 282-83 (). Nevertheless, Township denied Outdoor's request for site-specific relief. Id. at 284.[1] The trial court affirmed, and Outdoor appealed to the Outdoor II Court. Id.
The Outdoor II Court granted relief to Outdoor, reasoning that the trial court failed to comply with the appropriate legal framework for resolving whether Outdoor was entitled to site-specific relief. Id. at 289-91. The Outdoor II Court remanded to have the trial court "conduct a de novo review of the evidence presented before the" Board and, if necessary, hold additional evidentiary hearings. Id.
Following several evidentiary hearings, the trial court granted Outdoor site-specific relief. Very simply, the trial court rejected Outdoor's original proposed billboard but accepted Outdoor's revised proposed billboard as site-specific relief.[2]Township timely appealed and timely filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.[3]
Township raises three issues, which we have combined into two for disposition. First, Township alleges that because Outdoor's revised proposed billboard did not comply with unchallenged, preexisting zoning restrictions, i.e., "ground sign" provisions, the trial court erred by granting site-specific relief to Outdoor. Twp.'s Br. at 2. Relatedly, Township contends the trial court improperly required Township to prove "that the unchallenged provisions of the . . . Ordinance were not exclusionary." Id. at 2-3, 22. Second, Township argues that it proved that Outdoor's revised proposed billboard was contrary to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Id. at 3.
Before summarizing Township's argument in support of its first issue, we discuss Outdoor II and the trial court's decisions. Township apparently misapprehended the trial court's decisions, which led to its puzzling argument, infra, that the trial court "held" that Outdoor's revised proposed billboard violated the Ordinance's "ground sign" provisions. Because the trial court's actual holding was more nuanced-it held that Outdoor's original proposed billboard violated the Ordinance's "ground sign" provisions, but those provisions were not material to regulating billboards-Township's argument rests on a false premise.
The Outdoor II Court established a post-remand framework to resolve Outdoor's request for site-specific relief, i.e., both Outdoor's original and revised proposed billboards. Simply, Township was required to prove that Outdoor's original (1) "proposed billboard is incompatible with any of the Ordinance's unchallenged, pre-existing, and generally applicable provisions"; or (2) "proposed billboard is contrary to the . . . health, safety, and welfare" of the public; or (3) both. Outdoor II, 167 A.3d at 290-91 (summarizing Fernley, and In re Bartkowski Inv. Grp., Inc., 106 A.3d 230 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (Bartkowski), which, in turn, relied on the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC)).[5] The Outdoor II Court held that if Township met its burden for Outdoor's original proposed billboard, then "the trial court must consider alternative sites and/or alternative configurations for the proposed billboard and fashion some form of site-specific relief," i.e., Outdoor's revised proposed billboard. Id. The trial court would then review the revised proposed billboard under the above three-prong framework. See id.
On remand, the trial court initially held that Township met its burden of proving that Outdoor's original proposed billboard violated several of the Ordinance's "ground sign" provisions. Trial Ct. Op., 7/10/20, at 5-7.[6] The court held, however, that those unchallenged "ground sign" provisions were not material to regulating billboards. Id. at 7.[7] The court explained that Township did not prove that the "ground sign" provisions did not exclude all billboards, i.e., such provisions permitted billboards. Id. at 8-9. For example, Township did not prove that a billboard could still "convey a commercial message" if limited to an area of 30 square feet or less, i.e., a "ground sign" provision at Section 1903.2.A of the Ordinance. Id.
The trial court next examined whether the original "proposed billboard [was] contrary to the . . . health, safety, and welfare" of the public. See Outdoor II, 167 A.3d at 290-91. The court held that Outdoor's original proposed billboard posed "a risk to the health, safety[,] and welfare of the public." Trial Ct. Op., 7/10/20, at 10. Accordingly, the court stated it must consider alternative sites or configurations in order to fashion court-mandated site-specific relief for Outdoor, i.e., Outdoor's revised proposed billboard. Id.; see also Outdoor II, 167 A.3d at 291.
Outdoor proposed a revised billboard in anticipation of the trial court's mandate to fashion site-specific relief. The trial court held several evidentiary hearings at which it considered Outdoor's revised billboard proposal, the proposed alternative location, and traffic safety. See, e.g., Notes of Testimony (N.T.) Hr'g, 12/18/20.[8] We discuss the trial court's subsequent September 14, 2021 opinion, infra, as it is not necessary to resolve Township's first issue other than to note that the court did not hold that Outdoor's revised billboard proposal violated any "ground sign" provisions. See generally Trial Ct. Op., 9/14/21.
On appeal, Township argues that the trial court held that the revised proposed billboard violates the Ordinance's "ground sign" provisions. Twp.'s Br. at 19-20 ().[9] In Township's view, the Outdoor II Court held that the trial court must deny relief if Township proved the materiality of the "ground sign" provisions to billboards. Id. at 20. Township contends that it "met its burden," and the trial court erred in granting relief to Outdoor. Id. at 20-21. Township concludes that because the revised proposed billboard is an impermissible "ground sign" under the Ordinance, Township reasons the trial court should have denied site-specific relief. Id. at 19 & n.3. Relatedly, Township also argues that Outdoor was required to prove that the "ground sign" provisions "would effectively exclude all billboards in . . . Township or would limit the trial court's discretion in fashioning site-specific relief." Id. at 22 (cleaned up). In Township's view, the trial court erred by shifting the burden to Township. Id. For these reasons, Township concludes that the trial court erred in granting site-specific relief. Id. at 24.[10]
Under Section 1006-A of the Municipalities Planning Code, the trial court has "broad discretionary powers" to grant site-specific relief to an aggrieved party. 53 P.S. § 11006-A; Outdoor II, 167 A.3d at 290 (citation omitted). The trial court must provide site-specific relief to a successful challenger subject to two conditions. Outdoor II, 167 A.3d at 290. First, the trial court's relief "may be limited by the coexistence of legitimate health, safety, and welfare concerns." Id. (citation omitted). Second, the relief may be limited by reasonable "zoning and land use provisions that may be applicable to a particular use at a particular location." Id. (citation omitted). In other words, "a successful challenger's request for site-specific relief must be granted unless the municipality can establish the materiality of preexisting and generally applicable zoning provisions and that the proposed [billboard] is incompatible with such provisions." Id. (emphases added).[11] If the trial court denies the requested site-specific relief, then the "trial court must consider whether alternative relief can and should be made available," i.e., another opportunity for "site-specific" relief. Id. at 291. Finally, a trial court must strictly comply with a remand order and cannot consider issues outside the scope of the remand order. Marshall v. Commonwealth, 197 A.3d 294, 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).
Instantly Township...
To continue reading
Request your trial