Plymouth Tp. v. Montgomery County
| Decision Date | 20 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 3312,s. 3312 |
| Citation | 109 Pa.Cmwlth. 200,531 A.2d 49 |
| Parties | TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, Appellee. TOWNSHIP OF PLYMOUTH, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, Appellee. C.D. 1986 and 3313 C.D. 1986. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Arthur Lefkoe, Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone, Craig & Garrity, Norristown, and Stephen M. Feldman, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Bruce W. Kauffman, Sheryl Auerbach, John F. Smith, III, Philadelphia, Bruce J. Eckel, County Solicitor's Office, Frederic M. Wentz, Norristown, Joseph S. Mistick, Mistick, Littig & Giltiman, Pittsburgh, Anthony J. Mazzullo, Jr., Doylestown, for appellee.
Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and CRAIG, MacPHAIL, DOYLE and BARRY, JJ.
In this case, where a proposed county refuse disposal plant faces prohibition by township enactments, we must recognize statutory and judicial distinctions between ordinance provisions governing where the location of the facility may be (zoning provisions) and, on the other hand, how it may be technically designed and operated (operational regulations).
Such an analysis, mindful of a meaningful classification of local enactments, is necessary to resolve this case's two chief issues:
1. Did the trial court, in an equity and declaratory judgment proceeding, have subject matter jurisdiction to decide ordinance validity questions without requiring the county first to exhaust administrative remedies for the invalidation of zoning provisions under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) 1?
2. Has the Solid Waste Management Act 2 preempted the township's power to enact and enforce both the operational regulations and the zoning provisions on which it seeks to rely?
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Plymouth Township simultaneously filed declaratory judgment and equity actions against Montgomery County, seeking a declaration that the county's proposed 1200-ton-per-day resource recovery facility, a trash-to-steam refuse disposal plant, would violate township ordinances, and also seeking an injunction to bar the county from further action to effectuate that project.
After Judge Corso denied the township's request for a temporary restraining order, the county responded to the complaints and, in the equity action, by counterclaim sought to have the court invalidate the ordinances and enjoin the township from blocking construction and operation of the proposed plant.
Following the court's rejection of the township's preliminary objections to the counterclaim, the parties stipulated to the consolidation of the two cases and agreed to an initial trial phase limited to evidence pertinent to the issues of jurisdiction and preemption.
After a thorough hearing, the trial judge, Judge Bucher, issued an adjudication in which he adopted numerous detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to which he ruled the questioned ordinance provisions to be unenforceable with respect to the county's proposed plant. He granted the county's counterclaim by enjoining the township from taking any action against the county's project other than comments and objections to the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and the Environmental Hearing Board. He confirmed that decision following post-trial motions.
Following the township's appeals to this court, the county sought the application of extraordinary jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to this court for expedited disposition.
This court, after reviewing the record, discerns no abuse of discretion by the trial judge with respect to the findings of fact, in that the record contains substantial evidence supporting all of them. Reference to specific findings will follow, as pertinent.
A condensed chronology of events, drawn from those findings, can provide the factual background for analysis. In October, 1982, the township, by resolution, authorized the county to develop a countywide waste management plan under the SWMA. After the county, in 1983 and 1984, in consultation with the municipalities, considered the establishment of an 1800-ton-per-day plant in the township for the district in which the township was located, a Montgomery County Solid Waste Management Committee, on which the township was represented, proceeded in 1985 to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) for a 1200-ton-per-day plant to be located on county-owned property in the township. In February of that year, a letter of the township solicitor indicated that there would be "no problem" with that size of plant.
On April 15, 1985, the township adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance, establishing a 121-acre resource recovery district and allowing a plant of 1200-ton (throughput) capacity, with height maximum at 165 feet.
However, after the development of community opposition to such a plant in the township, the township council proceeded on April 29, 1985 to repeal that zoning amendment, only two weeks after its enactment. Although the stated reason for the repeal was inadequate advertising, the township did not attempt to readvertise it.
After the county had issued the RFP for the 1200-ton facility on May 7, 1985, the township council issued a public declaration on May 29 that they were "unanimously opposed" to any type of solid waste disposal facility within the township.
Thereafter, in connection with township deliberations, the township solicitor advised the council that "limitation of tonnage for trash transfer stations" could be illegal, and also that this court had decided that zoning could not be used to regulate the method of operation of a landfill or trash transfer station.
On July 8, 1985, the township passed the three ordinances chiefly at issue here, Nos. 934, 936 and 937.
In December, 1985, the county completed and adopted its Municipal Waste Management Plan calling for development of the 1200-ton facility within the district designated by the township for a resource recovery facility. After DER issued preliminary approval of the plan, the county entered into contracts with private companies to construct and operate the plant in question. Seventeen of the twenty-four municipalities in the district have contracted with the county to take their municipal waste for disposal at the plant. The County Industrial Development Authority has also issued bonds to finance the construction costs.
While the DER approval process was underway in 1986, the township advised the county that the township regarded the proposed facility as "illegal" and that the township would not issue a permit for it unless a court invalidated the township ordinances.
This litigation followed.
Ordinance No. 934, the Solid Waste Management Ordinance, is not part of the township's Zoning Ordinance. It regulates the processing and disposal of waste by requiring operators to obtain permits, pay permit application fees up to $100,000 and pay user fees of $.50 per ton for waste processed. That ordinance also regulates the disposal of waste at the facility, and the transportation of waste with respect to details of routing and route cleaning, vector control, vehicle size and emergency operational plans.
Ordinance No. 936, a zoning ordinance amendment, reestablishes the district regulations for the resource recovery district. It sets the maximum height of buildings, exclusive of stacks, at 40 feet, as compared to the maximum of 165 feet in the repealed resource recovery district regulations, and as compared to maximum height limitations of 100 to 200 feet in adjacent areas zoned for industry. This ordinance lists a resource recovery facility--i.e., a refuse disposal plant--as allowable only by conditional use approval granted by the township council. One of the conditional use standards limits a resource recovery facility to a design capacity not greater than 250 tons per day, as compared to the 1200-ton daily capacity allowable under the repealed version of the resource recovery district regulations.
Ordinance No. 937 amended the zoning map to describe the resource recovery district as being 36.3 acres in area, instead of the 121 acres previously allowed, and as including only 10 acres of the county-owned 70 acres.
In addition to the foregoing ordinances, Judge Bucher's adjudication also refers to Ordinance No. 837, subdivision and land development regulations under the MPC; section 5 of the township's Code, requiring a building permit; section 10 of the township's Code, subjecting the proposed facility to air pollution control approval; and section 23 of the township's Code, requiring a permit for connection of the facility to the East Norriton-Plymouth Joint Sewer Authority line. Although the findings of fact contain no reference to these provisions, Judge Bucher's opinion also declared them to be invalid as applied to the county's proposed plan.
As Judge Bucher correctly decided, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction in these equity and declaratory judgment actions to adjudicate all of the issues which the parties presented. Only the township has attacked the court's jurisdiction and, of course, only with respect to the county's counterclaim; equity jurisdiction with respect to the township's initial action to enjoin an alleged threatened violation of its zoning is expressly confirmed by section 617 of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10617.
In analyzing the jurisdictional question, the distinction between the operational regulations and the zoning provisions immediately becomes useful.
With respect to the operational regulations at issue, consisting of the solid waste management ordinance, No. 934 and the operational provisions of Ordinance No. 936, regulating how the refuse disposal plant should be technically designed and conducted with respect to capacity and other specifications, a need...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palermo Land Co., Inc. v. Planning Com'n of Calcasieu Parish
... ... See discussion, infra ... 5 See also, Beverly Bank v. Cook County, 157 Ill.App.3d 601, 109 Ill.Dec. 873, 510 N.E.2d 941 (1987), app. denied, 117 Ill.2d 541, 115 ... local zoning ordinances were not preempted by Solid Waste Management Act; Township of Plymouth v. County of Montgomery, 109 Pa.Cmwlth. 200, 531 A.2d 49 (1987), holding the Solid Waste Management ... ...
-
Synagro-Wwt, Inc. v. Rush Tp., Pennsylvania
... ... David J. MacMain, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, George Test, Killian & Gephart, LLP, Michael J ... such as a map of the surface waters on the proposed site and a memorialization of a county-approved plan to manage surface water and control erosion on the site." Id ... 111, 531 A.2d 1180, 1182 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987); Township of Plymouth v. County of Montgomery, 109 Pa.Cmwlth. 200, 531 A.2d 49, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth.Ct.1987); Municipality ... ...
-
Penn St., L.P. v. E. Lampeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. & E. Lampeter Twp.
... ... (Applicant) asks whether the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County 1 (trial court) erred in affirming a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of East Lampeter ... Associates v. Board of Supervisors of Montgomery Township, 51 Pa.Cmwlth. 627, 415 A.2d 134 (1980). The Township responds that ... Twp. of Plymouth v. Cnty. of Montgomery, 109 Pa.Cmwlth. 200, 531 A.2d 49, 57 (1987). “There is ... ...
-
Atherton Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Ferguson.
... ... Atherton appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County (trial court). Without taking additional evidence, the trial court affirmed. 2 This appeal ... 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 129, 455 A.2d 1284 (1983); C.L. Assocs. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Montgomery Twp., 51 Pa.Cmwlth. 627, 415 A.2d 134 (1980); O'Malia v. Council of Twp. of WilkesBarre, 38 ... Twp. of Plymouth v. Cnty. of Montgomery, 109 Pa.Cmwlth. 200, 531 A.2d 49, 57 (1987). There is no precise formula ... ...