Appeal of: I. Campbell & J. Campbell from the Decision Dated May 16, 2019 of the Whitpain Twp. ZHB ~ Appeal of: I. Campbell & J. Campbell

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appeal of: Ian Campbell :

and Jean Campbell from the :

Decision Dated May 16, 2019 :

of the Whitpain Township : No. 349 C.D. 2020

Zoning Hearing Board : Argued: March 15, 2021

:

Appeal of: Ian Campbell :

and Jean Campbell :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: April 13, 2021

Ian Campbell and Jean Campbell (Objectors) appeal from an order of

the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas (trial court), which affirmed the

decision of the Whitpain Township (Township) Zoning Hearing Board (Board)

granting the variance application (Application) of CA Senior Living Holdings LLC

(CA), and denied Objectors’ appeal of that Board decision. We vacate and remand.

The following facts may be gleaned from the Board’s decision.1 CA is

the equitable owner of property located at 435 Skippack Pike in the Township’s IN-

1

As this Court has explained:

[T]his Court may not substitute its interpretation of the evidence for

that of the [B]oard. It is the function of [the Board] to weigh the

evidence before it. The [B]oard is the sole judge of the credibility

of witnesses and the weight afforded their testimony. Assuming the

record contains substantial evidence, we are bound by the [B]oard’s

(Footnote continued on next page…)

Institutional District (Property). Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 3a, 4a. CA is

proposing the construction of 90 parking spaces and holding 45% of those spaces in

reserve on the Property. However, Section 160-192.B and 160-192.B(1)(f) of the

Township’s Zoning Ordinance, relating to Required Off-Street Parking Facilities,

require a minimum of 160 spaces and holding 25% of those spaces in reserve.2 Id.

To that end, CA filed the Application for a variance from the foregoing requirements.

Id.

On May 16, 2019, the Board conducted a hearing on the Application.

R.R. at 4a. Objectors, of 453 Skippack Pike, were granted party status in opposition

to the Application. Id. Additionally, a number of non-party residents appeared and

made statements in opposition to the Application. Id. CA’s engineer, John

Alejnikov, P.E.; principal, Ryan Cardin; and traffic engineer, John Harter, also

appeared and testified in support of the Application. Id. at 5a.

Further, the Board entered the following exhibits into evidence: (1) the

Application; (2) Proof of Publication; (3) CA’s Plan; and (4) the Township Board of

Supervisors’ Position Statement and the Township Planning Commission’s Position

findings that result from resolutions of credibility and conflicting

testimony rather than a capricious disregard of evidence.

[The Board] is free to reject even uncontradicted testimony

it finds lacking in credibility, including testimony offered by an

expert witness. It does not abuse its discretion by choosing to

believe the opinion of one expert over that offered by another.

Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board, 873 A.2d 807, 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)

(citations omitted).

2

The Board made no factual findings regarding the physical characteristics of the Property,

the use or improvement that CA proposed for the Property for which parking was necessary, or

the basis upon which the number of parking spaces required under the relevant Zoning Ordinance

provisions was determined. See R.R. at 1a, 3a-5a.

2

Statement. R.R. at 4a-5a. The exhibits attached to CA’s Application were also made

part of the record by incorporation. Id. at 5a.

Based on the foregoing evidence, the Board granted the Application at

the conclusion of the hearing and mailed that decision to Applicant on May 17, 2019

(Same-Night Decision). R.R. at 1a-2a, 5a. On June 20, 2019, the Board issued a

Formal Decision and Order in furtherance of its Same-Night Decision,3 which

contains the following Findings of Fact supporting the grant of a variance:

12. The Board found the testimony of each witness for

[CA] offered in support of the Application to be credible.

13. The testimony offered in support of the Application

demonstrated, among other things, that the [p]roposal will

not have an adverse effect upon the public health, safety,

and welfare. The testimony also demonstrated that the

requested relief is the minimum relief necessary to effect

the Applicant’s proposed improvement.

14. The complete hearing transcript and exhibits are

incorporated by reference as though fully set forth here as

Findings of Fact in support of this Board’s granting of the

Application.

R.R. at 5a.

In light of these findings, the Board set forth the following Conclusions

of Law:

3

It should be noted that the Same-Night Decision contains three conditions for the variance

that are not referenced in the Formal Decision and Order. See R.R. at 1a, 3a-8a.

3

1. Pursuant to Section 909.1 of the Pennsylvania

Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”),[4] this Board has

exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render a final

adjudication relative to this Application.

2. The requirements for a variance in Pennsylvania are

clear and are specifically stated in Section 910.2[(a)] of the

MPC.[5] It states, in pertinent part, as follows:

***

(a) The [b]oard shall hear requests for variances where it

is alleged that the provisions of the zoning ordinance

inflict unnecessary hardship upon the applicant. The

[b]oard may by rule prescribe the form of application and

may require preliminary application to the zoning officer.

The [b]oard may grant a variance, provided that all of

the following findings are made where relevant in a

given case:

(1) That there are unique physical circumstances or

conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or

shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional

topographical or other physical conditions peculiar

to the particular property and that the unnecessary

hardship is due to such conditions and not the

circumstances or conditions generally created by

the provisions of the zoning ordinance in the

neighborhood or district in which the property is

located[.]

(2) That because of such physical circumstances or

conditions, there is no possibility that the property

can be developed in strict conformity with the

provisions of the zoning ordinance and that the

authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to

enable the reasonable use of the property[.]

4

Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L.

1329, 53 P.S. §10909.1.

5

Added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, as amended, 53 P.S. §10910.2(a).

4

(3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been

created by the [appellant.]

(4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the

essential character of the neighborhood or district in

which the property is located, nor substantially or

permanently impair the appropriate use or

development of adjacent property, nor be

detrimental to the public welfare[.]

(5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent

the minimum variance that will afford relief and

will represent the least modification possible of the

regulation in issue[.]

***

3. Given the testimony presented at the hearing, a

careful review of the evidentiary record evidence offered

in support of the requested variance relief, and with no

substantive proof offered to the contrary, this Board finds

that [CA] has established an entitlement to its requested

variance relief.

4. Particularly noteworthy, this Board concludes that

[CA’s] requested variance relief will not be adverse to the

public health, safety, and welfare and is the minimum

relief necessary to effect the [p]roposal.

R.R. at 5a-7a (emphasis added).

On June 17, 2019, Objectors appealed the Board’s Formal Decision and

Order to the trial court.6 On February 11, 2020, following argument and without

taking additional evidence, the trial court issued the instant order affirming the

6

CA intervened in Objectors’ appeal to the trial court.

5

Board’s Formal Decision and Order and denying Objectors’ appeal. Objectors then

filed this appeal of the trial court’s order.7

On appeal, Objectors allege, inter alia, that the trial court erred in not

requiring the Board to issue its decision granting the variance with sufficient findings

of fact and conclusions of law demonstrating that all of the requirements of Section

910.2 of the MPC are supported by substantial record evidence.8 We agree.

7

“Because the parties presented no additional evidence after the [b]oard’s decision, our

review is limited to determining whether the [b]oard committed an abuse of discretion or an error

of law.” Taliaferro, 873 A.2d at 811 n.1 (citation omitted).

8

Additionally, Section 908(9) of the MPC states, in relevant part:

(9) The board . . . shall render a written decision or, when no

decision is called for, make written findings on the application

within 45 days after the last hearing before the board . . . . Where the

application is contested or denied, each decision shall be

accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions based thereon

together with the reasons therefor. Conclusions based on any

provisions of this act or of any ordinance, rule or regulation shall

contain a reference to the provision relied on and the reasons why

the conclusion is deemed appropriate in the light of the facts found.

53 P.S. §10908(9). As this Court has explained:

Where an application for zoning relief is contested, the

board’s decision must be accompanied by findings of fact and

conclusions, as well as the reasons for the findings. See Section

908(9) of the [MPC], 53 P.S. §10908(9). “[T]he [MPC] mandates

that the [b]oard issue an opinion, as distinguished from its order or

decision disposing of the matter, setting forth the essential findings

of fact, conclusions of law, and sufficient rationale to demonstrate

that its action was reasoned and not arbitrary.” A zoning board’s

opinion is sufficient if it provides an adequate explanation of its

resolution of the factual questions involved, and sets forth its

reasoning in such a way as to show its decision was reasoned and

not arbitrary.

Taliaferro, 873 A.2d at 816 (citations and footnote omitted).

6

As this Court has previously observed in a similar circumstance:

[The objector] contends that the [b]oard’s

adjudication is of no effect because the [b]oard failed to

make the findings required by [the prior version of Section

912.1] of the [MPC] supporting the applicant’s allegation

that the provisions of the zoning ordinance inflict

unnecessary hardship. The statute just cited provides that

zoning hearing boards must in granting a variance make

the following findings where relevant: (1) that there are

unique physical circumstances or characteristics peculiar

to the property in question causing the unnecessary

hardship, (2) that because of such physical circumstances

or conditions there is no possibility that the property can

be developed in strict conformity with the ordinance and

that the variance is necessary to enable a reasonable use of

the property, (3) that the unnecessary hardship has not

been created by the applicant, (4) that the variance will not

alter the character of the neighborhood or other property,

nor impair the use or development of adjacent land, (5)

that the variance represents the minimum variance that

will afford relief and the least modification possible of the

regulation in issue. In Lando v. Springettsbury Township

Zoning Board of Adjustment, [286 A.2d 924, 927 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1972)], we held that these findings are essential

to the validity of grants of variance and that reviewing

courts should remand adjudications in which they are not

supplied.[9]

9

Specifically, in Lando, 286 A.2d at 927 (citations omitted), we stated:

Both Section 908(9) of the [MPC] and case law require that

the [b]oard issue an opinion which sets forth the essential findings

of fact and sufficient of the [b]oard’s reasoning to show that its

action was reasoned rather than arbitrary. In addition, [the prior

version of Section 912.1 of the MPC] requires (at least by

implication) specific findings in variance cases. Other recent

decisions have adopted the course of remanding the case to the

[b]oard for correction of the error if the [b]oard has not rendered a

proper opinion.

7

Independent Fire Company No. 1 v. Borough of South Williamsport Zoning Hearing

Board, 510 A.2d 410, 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). See also Upper Saucon Township v.

Zoning Hearing Board, 583 A.2d 45, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (“Appellate courts

cannot properly and efficiently exercise even a limited function of judicial review

without the [b]oard’s necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law together with

reasons for its decision, even when the record contains complete testimony presented

to the board. [Lando].”).

In this regard, we have also explained:

Independently dispositive, the [zoning hearing

board (ZHB)] has failed to address all five of the factors

required by Section 910.2 of the MPC as a prerequisite to

a grant of a variance. Section 910.2 plainly states, prior to

listing the five factors, that “[the ZHB] may grant a

variance, provided that all of the following findings are

made where relevant in a given case.” 53 P.S. § 10910.2

(emphasis added). In the entirety of its opinion, the ZHB

clearly has not made findings in regard to a minimum of

two of those factors, and possibly as many as four of those

factors . . . . As such, again, effective appellate review of

this matter is precluded. We note that nothing in the record

to this matter indicates that any of Section 910.2’s five

factors would not be relevant in this case, under Section

910.2’s plain language.

Accordingly, we vacate the [Common Pleas]

Court’s Decision, and remand this matter to [that court]

with instructions for further remand to the ZHB for the

sole and limited purpose of producing a decision that

comports with the requirements of Section 910.2 of the

MPC, and which enables effective appellate review

thereof.

8

Kennedy v. Zoning Hearing Board of Middletown Township (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 863

C.D. 2009, filed January 8, 2010), slip op. at 7-8 (emphasis in original).10

As outlined above, in the Formal Decision and Order in this case, the

Board merely made reference in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

granting the Application that two of the five factors required by Section 910.2 have

been satisfied by the evidence that was presented. See R.R. at 3a-7a. However, the

Board neither considered nor addressed all of the required factors and did not present

any rationale for its conclusion that any of Section 910.2’s factors have been satisfied

in this case. See id. Because the Board’s Formal Decision and Order is so patently

10

See Section 414(a) of this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code

§69.414(a) (“Parties may . . . cite an unreported panel decision of this court issued after January

15, 2008, for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent.”). See also Poole v. Zoning Board

of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 10 A.3d 381, 386 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (footnotes

omitted), wherein we stated:

While the [b]oard set forth in its findings a summary of [the

developer’s] proposed residential development plan, the [b]oard

failed to provide any finding of fact that addresses any of the criteria

supporting the decision to grant the foregoing three variances. The

[b]oard did not provide any explanation for its reasoning. While the

[b]oard’s decision recognized the legal framework for granting

variances, it did not make any factual findings or explain how those

facts led it to determine that unnecessary hardship exists, that there

is no public detriment, and that [the developer] sought the minimum

variance required in order to obtain relief with respect to these three

variance requests.

Thus, a remand is necessary so that the [b]oard may address

and make specific findings with respect to whether [the developer]

established the requirements for the remaining three requested

variances. Accordingly, the order of the [common pleas] court is

vacated and the matter is remanded to th[at] court, with specific

instructions to remand the matter to the [b]oard, for further findings

consistent with this opinion.

9

deficient, the matter must be remanded so that the Board may issue a final decision

and order, based on the record evidence already presented,11 that complies with the

requirements of the MPC and permits effective appellate review by this Court.12

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is vacated, and the matter is

remanded to that court for further remand to the Board to issue a final decision and

order containing the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required

by Sections 908(9) and 910.2 of the MPC, based on the record evidence already

presented to the Board.13

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

See, e.g., Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 94 A.3d 436, 442 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (“A

11

remand does not permit a litigant a ‘proverbial second bite at the apple.’ Emery Worldwide v.

Unemployment [Compensation Board] of Review, [540 A.2d 988, 990 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)].”).

12

Compare Taliaferro, 873 A.2d at 816, wherein we stated:

Here, the [b]oard made specific findings and conclusions

concerning the criteria required to grant the requested variance. In

addition, the [b]oard included a discussion in which it explained its

rationale for resolving evidentiary conflicts and credibility issues.

This situation is markedly different from the situation in Lando[,

286 A.2d at 927] (zoning board failed to make findings of fact in

support of its decision to deny a variance), upon which [o]bjectors

rely. As a result, we reject [o]bjectors’ argument that the [b]oard’s

findings and conclusions are inadequate.

13

Based on our disposition of this issue, we will not reach the other allegations of error

raised in this appeal.

10

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appeal of: Ian Campbell :

and Jean Campbell from the :

Decision Dated May 16, 2019 :

of the Whitpain Township : No. 349 C.D. 2020

Zoning Hearing Board :

:

Appeal of: Ian Campbell :

and Jean Campbell :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2021, the order of the Montgomery

County Court of Common Pleas dated February 11, 2020, is VACATED, and the

above-captioned matter is REMANDED to that court for further REMAND to the

Whitpain Township Zoning Hearing Board for proceedings consistent with the

foregoing opinion.

Jurisdiction is RELINQUISHED.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge