Prin v. Council of Municipality of Monroeville

• Decision Date: 07 July 1994
• Citation: 165 Pa.Cmwlth. 519,645 A.2d 450
• Parties: William PRIN, Evi Prin, Alice G. Prin, Claire Prin Blomquist and 4004 Monroeville Boulevard, Inc., Appellants, v. The COUNCIL OF the MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE and Robert L. Caruso. William PRIN, Evi Prin, Alice G. Prin, Claire Prin Blomquist and 4004 Monroeville Boulevard, Inc., Appellants, v. The COUNCIL OF the MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE and Robert L. Caruso.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 450

645 A.2d 450

165 Pa.Cmwlth. 519

William PRIN, Evi Prin, Alice G. Prin, Claire Prin Blomquist and 4004 Monroeville Boulevard, Inc., Appellants, v. The COUNCIL OF the MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE and Robert L. Caruso.

William PRIN, Evi Prin, Alice G. Prin, Claire Prin Blomquist and 4004 Monroeville Boulevard, Inc., Appellants, v. The COUNCIL OF the MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE and Robert L. Caruso.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Feb. 28, 1994.

Decided July 7, 1994.

Dwight D. Ferguson, for appellants.

Beth S. Mills, for appellee.

Before SMITH and NEWMAN, JJ., and KELTON, Senior Judge.

SMITH, Judge.

William Prin, Evi Prin, Alice G. Prin, and Claire Prin Blomquist (The Prins) are owners of property in the Municipality of Monroeville who, along with 4004 Monroeville Boulevard, Inc. (collectively Appellants), appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which affirmed a decision by the Monroeville Municipal Council (Council) denying Appellants' conditional use and site plan applications necessary for development of their property. ¹ While Appellants raise eight questions for review, this Court's disposition of the case requires discussion of only one: whether Appellants were denied due process because of the apparent bias of a Council member.

The Prins own approximately 70.7 acres of property in Monroeville. They granted to 4004 Monroeville Boulevard, Inc. an option to purchase and the right to further develop the property initially as a shopping center. In December 1989, Appellants filed conditional use and site plan applications with the Monroeville zoning officer for construction of a shopping center on the property, and the applications were considered and discussed by the Monroeville Planning Commission (Commission) at a series of public hearings in January, February, and March 1990. At the February meeting, Richard Lopicollo, councilman for the fifth ward where the property is located, spoke in opposition to the shopping center, and at the March meeting the Commission voted to recommend to Council that Appellants' applications be denied.

Lopicollo subsequently wrote to his constituents twice on Council stationery, expressing strong opposition to the project and calling on them, in one letter, to attend the Council meeting where a vote was scheduled on the applications to "send the message" of their disapproval and encourage Council to "[hammer in] the next nail in the coffin of this ill-conceived project," and in another letter urged constituents to help "defeat this latest example of a greedy developer." At a public hearing on May 8, 1990, Appellants' attorney requested recusal of Lopicollo because of his previously voiced disapproval of their applications; the request was ignored; and Council denied the applications. In November 1990, Appellants filed a second set of conditional use and site plan applications for construction of a smaller shopping center on the property; in February 1991 the Commission voted to recommend to Council denial of the applications; and in March 1991 Council denied the applications.

Appellants appealed both decisions to the trial court which affirmed Council's denials of the applications without further hearing. ² The scope of review by this Court in a zoning case where the lower court has taken no additional testimony or evidence is limited to determining whether, in this case, Council abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. See Sweigart Appeal, 117 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 84, 544 A.2d 74 (1988). Further, this Court has long recognized that interference with the actions of a municipal body is to be undertaken in extremely limited circumstances; see, e.g., Flaherty v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 450 Pa. 509, 299 A.2d 613 (1973), where the authority acted outside the scope of its power or in an improper exercise of its discretion. Also see Frederick v. City of Butler, 30 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 625, 374 A.2d 768 (1977); Haddington Leadership Organization, Inc. v. Sherman, 8 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 309, 302 A.2d 919 (1973).

Appellants contend they were denied due process by Lopicollo's participation in the Council votes that resulted in denial of their applications despite his obvious bias against the project. They cite Lopicollo's authorship and distribution of inflammatory letters, solicitation of opposition, appearances before the Zoning Board and the Commission, and "vote trading" with another councilman in an effort to defeat the applications as evidence of his bias. In Horn v. Township of Hilltown, 461 Pa. 745, 337 A.2d 858 (1975), the Supreme Court held that due process was denied where an individual served as a zoning board solicitor and subsequently appeared before the same board as the municipality's solicitor to oppose an application for a variance. The Court recognized that a governmental body that is charged with certain decision-making functions...