PSIP JVI Krumsville Rd., LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of Greenwich Twp.
| Decision Date | 26 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 51 C.D. 2021 |
| Citation | 284 A.3d 547 |
| Parties | PSIP JVI KRUMSVILLE ROAD, LLC v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF GREENWICH TOWNSHIP, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Joan E. London, Wyomissing, for Appellant.
Charles M. Suhr, Harrisburg, for Appellee.
BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge,1 HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge,2 HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT
The Board of Supervisors of Greenwich Township (Township Supervisors) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court) that granted the land use appeal of PSIP JVI Krumsville Road, LLC (Developer). In doing so, the trial court reversed the Township Supervisors’ decision to disapprove Developer's preliminary land development plan for the stated reason that Developer had conveyed land to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) for a highway right-of-way without first obtaining Greenwich Township's (Township) subdivision approval. Discerning no error in the trial court's conclusion that a conveyance to a condemnor for a public purpose is exempt from the municipality's subdivision approval and that the Township acted in bad faith in its review and processing of Developer's land development plan, we affirm the trial court.
Developer owns 44.28 acres of land (Property) in the Township's industrial zoning district. The property fronts on Pennsylvania State Route 737, also known as Krumsville Road. In March of 2018, Developer submitted a preliminary land development plan (Plan) to the Township, seeking approval to develop a 495,437-square-foot warehouse distribution facility on the Property.
The Plan's proposed access to State Route 737 requires a highway occupancy permit from PennDOT, which determined that the existing right-of-way for State Route 737 had to be widened.3 To that end, a strip of Developer's Property, 519 feet in length and between 8 feet and 15.5 feet in width, that fronted State Route 737, had to be conveyed to PennDOT. Another strip of land, 383 feet in length and between 6 feet and 15.5 feet in width, fronting State Route 737 and then owned by Kenneth and Jude Thompson (Thompsons), also had to be conveyed to PennDOT. The Thompsons’ land fronting State Route 737 is located just south of the Property. Because the Thompsons were not the applicants for the highway occupancy permit, PennDOT directed Developer, first, to acquire the Thompsons’ strip of land and, second, to convey the entire strip of land to PennDOT in a single deed.
On April 16, 2018, the Thompsons conveyed to Developer a 0.11-acre strip of land in a special warranty deed reciting that it was for a "Plan of Required Right-of-Way (Fee Simple) ...." Reproduced Record at 175a (R.R. __).4 It further stated that the conveyance was "for the only proper use and behoof of the Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, subject as aforesaid. " R.R. 173a (emphasis added). By indenture dated October 15, 2019, Developer conveyed a strip of land, approximately 900 feet in length, to PennDOT "as [a] required right-of-way" for State Route 737. R.R. 188a, 191a. Each deed incorporates an attached "Exhibit A" that depicts the new borders of the right-of-way for State Route 737.
On September 21, 2018, Developer revised its Plan to explain its highway occupancy permit application. On October 12, 2018, the Township engineer wrote to Developer that its acquisition of an interest in the Thompsons’ property had been done "without the required subdivision plan submission, review, and approval process." R.R. 39a.
On June 12, 2019, Developer responded, by letter, that subdivision approval was not required because "[t]he area in question" was limited to a highway right-of-way dedication. R.R. 53a. On July 15, 2019, the Township Planning Commission determined, inter alia , that an approved subdivision of the Thompsons’ property was the necessary precondition to a conveyance to Developer, notwithstanding the intended dedication to PennDOT for State Route 737.
In December of 2019, Developer submitted a "Compliance Plan" demonstrating that the expansion of PennDOT's right-of-way did not create dimensional nonconformities with respect to the Thompsons’ remaining parcel. The Township engineer agreed, stating that although Developer "did not follow the required subdivision plan procedure/process, it appears the resulting lot in question complies with underlying zoning requirements after the conveyance to PennDOT." R.R. 94a.
On January 20, 2020, the Township Planning Commission met and unanimously voted to recommend that the Township Supervisors deny Developer's Plan application for the sole reason that the conveyance to Developer by the Thompsons had not been preceded by a subdivision filing. The Planning Commission further stated that Developer's "recent conveyance of the subject partial lot to PennDOT does not alleviate the need for Township subdivision approval, and as such, the original conveyance of the partial lot to [Developer] is still considered an invalid/illegal subdivision which to date has not been corrected. " R.R. 97a (emphasis added).
On April 6, 2020, the Township Supervisors voted unanimously to disapprove the Plan for the stated reason that Developer's acquisition of an interest in the Thompsons’ land was done without a subdivision approval under Section 204 of the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO).5 Ignoring the Township engineer's acknowledgement that this conveyance fully complied with substantive zoning law, the Township Supervisors held Developer's "process" violation of the SALDO authorized the Plan's disapproval.6 The Township Supervisors also determined that Developer violated a provision of the SALDO that required driveways to be located solely on the property they serve.
Developer appealed the Township Supervisors’ decision, and the trial court reversed. In doing so, the trial court noted that Developer's acquisition of an interest to the Thompsons’ strip of land was limited to the sole purpose of dedicating that interest to the right-of-way for State Route 737. Any acquisition of real property for PennDOT's right-of-way did not require subdivision approval from the Township. Further, Developer's "temporary intermediate ownership" of an interest in the Thompsons’ land "had no bearing on the ultimate use of the land which was always intended to be a PennDOT right-of-way." Trial Court PA. R.A.P. 1925(a) Op., 5/3/2021, at 5.
The trial court further held that the Township Supervisors acted in bad faith in denying the Plan. The record showed that the Township never advised Developer on how to comply with the SALDO after the Township learned, in 2018, of Developer's acquisition of the so-called "partial lot." R.R. 97a. Finding no substantive defects in the Plan, the Township invoked "self-serving technical violations." Trial Court PA. R.A.P. 1925(a) Op. at 5. Instead of taking steps to enforce the SALDO, the Township denied Developer's application in its entirety. Id. In any case, as acknowledged by the Township engineer, Developer's Compliance Plan demonstrated that the Thompsons’ parcel fully complied with the "underlying zoning requirements after the conveyance to PennDOT." R.R. 94a.
The Township Supervisors appealed to this Court.
On appeal,7 the Township Supervisors raise two issues for our consideration. First, they argue that the trial court erred in holding that Developer's Plan fully complied with the substantive provisions in the SALDO. They maintain that Developer's failure to follow the process for subdivision approval constituted a substantive violation of the SALDO. Second, they contend that the trial court erred in holding that they acted in bad faith. Rather, it was Developer that made the knowing decision not to obtain the Township's approval of the subdivision of the Thompsons’ property.
In their first issue, the Township Supervisors argue that Developer's acquisition of an interest in the Thompsons’ land required a prior subdivision approval, and the trial court erred in holding that Developer's Compliance Plan put this issue to rest. Further, Developer's conveyance to PennDOT did not relieve Developer of the need to obtain subdivision approval. The right of PennDOT to "override [ ] local subdivision regulations" occurs only where PennDOT exercises eminent domain power, which did not occur in the instant matter. Township Supervisors’ Brief at 32.
Developer responds that subdivision approval is not required for a conveyance for a public purpose, i.e. , the widening of a highway right-of-way. Here, the Thompsons conveyed a real estate interest to Developer for a limited use: its dedication to the State Route 737 right-of-way. Developer further contends that, even assuming that the Thompsons’ conveyance of a "partial lot" required subdivision approval, the SALDO violation occurred on the Thompsons’ property.8 Developer disputes the Township's claim that the driveway lies on the Thompsons’ property as not supported anywhere in the record. In sum, Developer contends that the Township Supervisors lacked any legal basis for their disapproval of Developer's Plan, as held by the trial court.
A party seeking approval of a land development plan bears the burden of showing its entitlement to approval. Ball v. Montgomery Township Board of Supervisors , 143 Pa.Cmwlth. 142, 598 A.2d 633, 637 (1991). If a plan complies with all objective provisions of the applicable SALDO, as well as other land use regulations, the plan must be approved. Herr v. Lancaster County Planning Commission , 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 379, 625 A.2d 164, 168 (1993). However, a single reason, if legitimate, may support the denial of the plan. Id. at 168-69. Here, the Township Supervisors disapproved the Plan for the single reason that the Thompsons’ conveyance to Developer of the right to convey land to PennDOT for the right-of-way required a prior subdivis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Municipalities Beware: Court Holds That PennDOT's Eminent Domain Power Preempts Local Subdivision Requirements
...For greater clarity, always consult with counsel. Footnotes 1. PSIP JVI Krumsville Rd., LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of Greenwich Twp., 284 A.3d 547, 549 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2. See Joseph v. N. Whitehall Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010); Valley Twp. v. City of Coatesville, 894 A.2d 88......