W. Hempfield Twp. v. Heisey, 1972 C.D. 2015
| Decision Date | 12 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1972 C.D. 2015,1972 C.D. 2015 |
| Parties | West Hempfield Township v. Daniel Heisey, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Daniel Heisey (Heisey) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (trial court) that entered judgment against him in favor of West Hempfield Township (Township) in the amount of $7,690 and permanently enjoined him from violating provisions of the West Hempfield Township Zoning Ordinance of 1988 (Ordinance) relating to the storage of recreational vehicles, storage of unlicensed, uninspected or inoperable vehicles, and outdoor stockpiling. Heisey, who appealed the trial court's order without filing a post-trial motion, claims the trial court denied him due process, imposed excessive fines, and improperly granted injunctive relief. In addition, he asserts the findings of violations were not supported by substantial evidence and were based on a misinterpretation of the Ordinance. After careful review, we dismiss Heisey's appeal for failure to file a post-trial motion.
Heisey occupies property1 located within the Township identified as 271-273 Prospect Road, Mount Joy, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Property), which is located in the rural agricultural district. In 2002, Heisey along with the record owner of the Property, Lisa Shannon, requested a special exception from the West Hempfield Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board) to continue a pre-existing nonconforming use of the Property as an excavating and landscape business and to permit an additional use for a home fuel oil delivery business. In October 2002, the Board granted the special exception to continue the landscaping and excavating business, subject to the conditions that a dump truck, tag-along equipment trailer, and truck tractor are the only vehicles permitted on the Property in conjunction with the business and one of the three vehicles must be garaged on the Property at all times. The Board denied their request to operate a fuel oil business.
In October 2010, a Township zoning officer observed on the Property several parked or stored commercial, unlicensed or uninspected vehicles, a vehicle partially disassembled and mounted on jacks, piles of assorted material, a travel trailer, and four boats. The zoning officer sent an enforcement notice pursuant to Section 616.1 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC)2 to Heisey, and the new record owner of the Property, Mohammad Ghazzoul. The notice charged Heisey with violating Sections 701.15, 701.19 and 701.23 of theOrdinance.3 The Township sent the notice to Heisey at 273 Prospect Road, Mount Joy, Pennsylvania by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first classmail. The notice sent by certified mail was returned unclaimed; the notice sent by first class mail was not returned. No one appealed the enforcement notice.
Thereafter, in January 2011, the Township filed a civil enforcement action against Heisey in the magisterial district court, pursuant to Sections 617.1 and 617.2(a) of the MPC4 seeking statutory sanctions for violations of the Ordinance as listed in the enforcement notice. In May 2011, Magisterial DistrictJudge Robert A. Herman (Magistrate Herman) entered judgment in favor of the Township against Heisey in the amount of $5,000, plus filing fees of $173.74 and attorney's fees of $1,190. Heisey timely filed an appeal in the trial court as well as a praecipe to enter a rule upon the Township to file a complaint.
The Township answered the rule by filing a complaint against Heisey alleging the continuation of zoning violations stemming from the Board's 2002 decision and Magistrate Herman's 2011 judgment. The Township requested statutory sanctions in the maximum amount of $500 per day as well as attorney's fees. The Township also requested an injunction to permanently prohibit Heisey from parking or storing recreational vehicles, unlicensed and uninspected vehicles, and stockpiling materials outside of the enclosed buildings on the Property in violation of the Ordinance. Heisey filed an answer and new matter, to which the Township replied.
On December 16, 2014, and January 24, 2015, the trial court held a non-jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court requested the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and post-hearing briefs within 15 days of the receipt of the transcripts, which they did. On July 16, 2015, the trial court issued a memorandum and decision, in which it entered judgment in favor of the Township for the violations noted on the enforcement notice. The trial court did not conduct de novo review as to whether Heisey violated the Ordinance as described in the enforcement notice, but instead ruled there was a conclusive determination of the violations because Heisey did not appeal the enforcement notice to the Board. Although Heisey claimed he never received proper notice of the enforcement, Heisey conceded he lived at 271-273 Prospect Road, Mount Joy.
The trial court then assessed the appropriateness of the fine and the reasonableness of the fees requested. The trial court ascertained the number of violations contained in the enforcement notice. With respect to the violation of Section 701.19, the enforcement notice stated that, on October 8, 2010, "there were piles of materials accumulated on the [P]roperty that have been there for at least two weeks." Trial Court Opinion, 7/16/2015, at 13. As there was no description as to how many piles were present, the trial court imposed a fine for a single violation. With regard to Section 701.23, the enforcement notice stated "there were two commercial vehicles on the [P]roperty that were stored outside of a building and were not licensed or inspected ... [and] a vehicle up on jacks with many parts removed that was stored outside a building." Trial Court Opinion at 14. As a result, the trial court found three separate violations of Section 701.23. As for Section 701.15, the enforcement notice stated "there were four boats and a travel trailer located on the [P]roperty that have been there at least four weeks." Trial Court Opinion at 14. Since it was unclear whether Heisey was permitted to park one or two recreational vehicles outside, without violating the Ordinance, the Court found only three violations. In sum, the trial court found seven violations and assessed civil penalties of $500 for each one for a total of $3,500.
In addition, the trial court awarded reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $4,190, which was less than the amount the Township requested. The trial court also granted the Township's request for injunctive relief by issuing a permanent injunction against Heisey enjoining him from violating Sections 701.15, 701.19, and 701.23 of the Ordinance.
From this decision, Heisey filed an appeal in the Superior Court. He also filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal with the trial courtpursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Superior Court directed Heisey to show cause why the appeal should not be transferred to Commonwealth Court and whether he was required to file post-trial motions with the trial court. Heisey agreed that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction of the appeal. The Superior Court transferred the matter here. We directed the parties to address the issue of post-trial motions in their briefs on the merits.
In October 2015, the trial court filed an "Opinion Sur Appeal" in response to Heisey's Rule 1925(b) statement, in which it reaffirmed its earlier decision on the same grounds. With respect to Heisey's challenge that he never received proper notice of the underlying enforcement notice, the trial court found the issue frivolous because Heisey conceded he lived at 271-273 Prospect Road in Mount Joy and the notice was mailed to him at 273 Prospect Road. The trial court further rejected numerous other issues on the basis they were raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, were waived under Pa. R.A.P. 302.5
On appeal,6 Heisey contends he was not required to file post-trial motions in a zoning matter where the trial court instructed the parties to file post-trial memoranda prior to reaching a decision. In so doing, Heisey contends he preserved the issues raised on appeal.
Turning to the merits of his appeal, Heisey claims he was denied due process because he did not receive the underlying enforcement notice and he was denied an opportunity to be heard. Even assuming proper notice, Heisey claims the Township waived any applicable presumption that the enforcement notice was valid and unassailable against him when it elected to present evidence instead of relying on that presumption.
In addition, Heisey argues he is entitled to reversal of civil fines and penalties imposed against him under the MPC because the findings of violations were based on a misinterpretation of the Ordinance, the evidence offered in support of the claimed violations was inadequate or inadmissible, and a defense witness was improperly excluded. Further, he asserts the trial court abused its discretion by imposing excessive fines and fees against him even though the Township failed to prove almost all of its claims or the duration of the claimed violations. Finally, Heisey maintains the trial court erred in granting injunctive relief. According to Heisey, there is no basis in law or fact for the grant of an injunction, and the injunction granted is vague, overbroad, and goes far beyond the subject enforcement proceeding.
We first address the necessity of post-trial motions. Heisey contends he was not required to file a post-trial motion because this is a zoning matter. In zoning matters, all that is required is that, somewhere in the record, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial