Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-2108 CivilLETTERMEN, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Appellants · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 99-2108 Civil Term 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, · Land Use Appeal OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL., Intervenor IN RE: Land Use Appeal To Conditional Use Requirements 6 and 7 Attached To The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors Conditional Use Approval Decision For The Rich Valley Golf Course ORDER AND NOW, thi,,~day of 0~__~, ,2000, after consideration of Re- Argument and all briefs submitted it is hereby ordered and decreed that Condition 6 should be stricken and Appellant is permitted to proceed in accordance with the "Clubhouse Schematics." Condition 7 is affirmed with the noted minor modification, as contained in the opinion. By the Court, L~/~)I~J i~. '"ofer, ~.J- Steven J. Fishman, Esquire Fishman & Morganthal 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrie, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C. 114 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Steven A. Stine, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 LETTERMEN, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Appellants · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. 99-2108 Civil Term 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, · Land Use Appeal OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL., Intervenor IN RE: Land Use Appeal To Conditional Use Requirements 6 and 7 Attached To The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors Conditional Use Approval Decision For The Rich Valley Golf Course OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: Statement of Facts and Procedural History Lettermen, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with offices at 153 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, is the equitable owner of the subject property and developer of a proposed golf course. Lettermen, Inc. sought and obtained approval from the Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors (hereinafter "Board") to construct a golf course at the subject property. The subject property is 194 acres of generally unimproved farmland. The property is transected by Rich Valley Road and bounded by Interstate 81, the Conodoguinet Creek, 10 single-family residences, and the farmland of Jack K. Sunday and Jeanne N. Sunday. On September 23, 1998, the Board approved Lettermen, Inc.'s rezoning request that the subject property be rezoned from Agricultural (A) to Rural Residential (R). On October 22, 1998, Lettermen, Inc. applied for conditional use approval. On December 10, 1998, the Township Planning Commission recommended to the Board that the Board deny the conditional use. On March 10, 1999, the Board granted Lettermen, Inc. a conditional use to construct a golf course subject to eleven (11) "specific conditions" in the Silver Spring Township Conditional Use Decision (hereinafter "Decision"). Lettermen, Inc. filed an appeal to this Court with regard to six (6) of the eleven (11) conditions set forth in the Decision. This Court issued an opinion addressing all eleven (11) conditions and an order on January 12, 2000. In that Opinion and Order, we annulled Condition 5 and in all other respects dismissed Lettermen Inc.'s appeal. The appeal of Lester S. Miller, et al. was also dismissed in the order. Upon motion by Appellant, Lettermen, Inc., this Court has permitted Re- Argument as to Conditions 6 and 7 as imposed by the Decision. These Conditions provide: 6. "That except for an outside entrance canopy, the proposed adaptation of the barn structure nearest Rich Valley Road denoted for clubhouse purposes must be limited and confined to the existing interior dimensions (width, length, height, area and volume) of said structure and within the "footprint" thereof." 7. "That restaurant and dining facilities of the clubhouse shall not be used for banquet purposes except in conjunction with principal golf- related activities on the day of said activities." 2 The issue before this Court is whether the Board committed an error of law, made findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence, or abused its discretion in imposing a conditional use subject to Conditions 6 and 7. DISCUSSION We must now re-evaluate whether the Board abused its discretion, committed an error of law or made findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence. POA Co. v. Findlay Township Zoning Hearing Board, 551 Pa. 689, 698, 713 A.2d 70, 75 (1989). An abuse of discretion occurs when a board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 698, 713 A.2d at 75. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that was reached. Id. A trial court, having determined that a board committed neither an abuse of discretion nor error of law, is bound to affirm the decision of the board as long as the board's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Spargo v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Municipality of Bethel Park, 128 Pa. Commw. 193, 204, 563 A.2d 213, 217 (1969) rearguement denied. Moreover, a trial court.may not substitute its judgment for that of a board, absent a manifest abuse of discretion. B&B Shoe v. Manheim Borough, 28 Pa. Commw. 275 (1977). The law regarding conditional use permits states that a conditional use permit must be granted if the applicant meets the specific requirements in the ordinance, unless the use will be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. 3 Wheaton v. Zoning Hearing Board of Municipality of Penn Hills, 130 Pa. Commw. 201,204-205, 567 A.2d 779, 781 (1989). The burden then shifts to the protesters to present evidence that the proposed use has a detrimental effect on health, safety and welfare. Id. at 204-205,567 A.2d at 781. A board of supervisors may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards, in addition to those expressed in the zoning ordinance, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the Municipalities Planning Code (hereinafter "MPC")in the zoning ordinance. MPC §603(c)(2); Levin v. Board of Supervisors of Benner Township, Centre County, 669 A.2d 1063, 1073 (Pa. Commw. 1995). Any conditions that the supervisors wish to impose upon the proposed conditional use must be upheld if the conditions are reasonably related to the health, safety or welfare of the public. Clinton County Solid Waste Authority v. Wayne Township, 164 Pa. Commw. 632,646-647,643 A.2d 1162, 1169 (1994) (requiring inspection of incoming waste and requiring construction of cyclone fence to protect site were held to be reasonable conditions imposed in a landfill conditional use), see also Mosside Associates, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Municipality of Monroeville, et al., 70 Pa. Commw. 555, 557,454 A.2d 199, 201 (1982). In evaluating the contentions of Lettermen, Inc., the Court may only abrogate the conditions of the Decision if it finds the Board either committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Valley View Civic Association v. Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550,462 A.2d 637 (1983); Limely v. Zoning Hearing Board of Port Vue 4 Borough, 533 Pa 340,625 A.2d 54 (1993). An abuse of discretion can be found where a board's findings and resulting conditions on approval are not supported by substantial evidence. Id. The Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance Section 704.3 provides: "The Board of Supervisors in approving conditional use applications may attach conditions considered necessary to protect the public welfare and the purposed listed above, including conditions which are more restrictive than those estab!ished for other uses in the same zone." It is clear that the Board has the authority, pursuant to Section 603 (c)(2) of the MPC, to attach reasonable conditions and safeguards, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the MPC and the relevant zoning ordinance. Clinton County Solid Waste Authority v. Wayne Twp., 164 Commw. 632,643 A.2d 1162 (1994). Pennsylvania law states that conditions which are not related to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public would be unnecessarily warranted and an unreasonable intermeddling with the applicant's ownership of his property. Van Sciver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 396 Pa. 657, 152 A.2d 717 (1959). Additionally, the courts have routinely required that the record contain substantial evidence to support a finding of fact which in turn is used to justify a condition based on health, safety and welfare concerns. Abernathy v. Zoning Hearing Board of Hampton Township, 119 Pa. Commw. 193, 546 A.2d 1311 (1988). 5 CONDITION 6 In our previous opinion, we affirmed the Board's Condition 6 limiting the clubhouse and banquet facility to the footprint of the existing building. This decision was based upon our misunderstanding that according to the Clubhouse Schematics, the combined gross square footage of the ground floor and the first floor of the facility would be 9,350 feet. We rendered our decision believing the entire facility would be constructed entirely within the footprint of the existing buildings. However, upon further review, it is clear that Lettermen, Inc. submitted a conditional use plan that depicted development of improvements for a clubhouse and related uses outside the footprint and interior dimensions of the existing building. The plan shows two additions to the existing barn structure, in addition to a patio area adjacent to the restaurant. The ordinance governing the present case is the 1995 Zoning Ordinance for Silver Spring Township §428. Section 428.5 of the ordinance permits golf courses to include "clubhouses" which consist of: A. Restaurant, snack bar, lounge and banquet facilities; B. Locker and restrooms; C. Pro shop; D. Administrative offices; E. Golf cart and maintenance equipment storage and service facility; F. Guest lodging; G. Fitness and health equipment. In our previous, opinion, we concluded that the proposed facility as evidenced by the Clubhouse Schematics allows all of the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance. We still adhere to this notion. We also concluded that only 84 seats 6 were necessary to accommodate golf banquets. Here, we made a miscalculation and failed to take into account that many tournaments held for charitable purposes include two (2) foursomes per hole; in otherwords, two (2) groups of four (4) people per hole. Furthermore, Section 418.5 of the zoning ordinance sets forth specific criteria to establish a golf course as a conditional use. It states that golf courses may include accessory uses, provided such uses are reasonably sized and located in order to afford incidental service to the golf course employees and users. Upon further review, it is the decision of this Court not to limit the clubhouse to the existing footprint because it would be unreasonably restrictive for the proposed facility. The proposed facility, as evidenced by the Clubhouse Schematics, adheres to the accessory uses as permitted in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, we reverse our original decision and uphold Appellant's request to strike Condition 6 in the Conditional Use Approval and permit Appellant to proceed in accordance with the Clubhouse Schematics. CONDITON 7' With regard to Condition 7, Lettermen, Inc. contends that no evidence was presented to demonstrate any negative effects of the plans presented and no findings of fact were made by the Board concluding that such negative effects would occur to support Condition 7. Lettermen, Inc. further argues that the restriction is an impermissible intrusion into the use of the land and is not necessary to protect the public, as required by the Pennsylvania M.C.P., case law 7 and the zoning ordinance. Appellant also claims that the proposed condition nullifies the ordinance by making the restaurant and dining facilities largely unusable for substantial periods of the year. This would include days on which golf activities are curtailed by various weather conditions (e.g. rain, snow, wind, cold, etc.). Additionally, Lettermen, Inc. contend that Condition 7 is arbitrary and capricious. It is the decision of this Court that the Board acted reasonably in restricting the use of the restaurant and banquet facilities to golf-related activities. The only modification on Condition 7 is that Lettermen, Inc. is permitted to use the restaurant and banquet facility on any day as long it corresponds with a principal golf-related activity.~ The banquet facilities are permitted to be used at anytime throughout the year, so long as they are being used in conjunction with a principal golf related activity.2 As long as the banquet is golf related, use of the banquet facility is fully permitted. This condition is clearly supported by the testimony of Jeffrey S. Austin on behalf of Lettermen, Inc. during which Mr. Austin emphasized the need to have banquet facilities in order to provide golf outing opportunities. Mr. Austin stated, "1 get really upset when somebody continually bangs the idea that we are in the banquet business. We are in the banquet business to service the golf course and ~ During Re-Argument, all parties agreed that restricting the use of banquet facilities to the day of said activity was excessive. 2 For example, the banquet facilities may be used for league organizational purposes before the initiation of the golf season, or at the conclusion of the season. 8 that's it." (Notes to Testimony of Hearing held (hereinafter "N.T.") page 107, lines 17-20). Additionally, Mr. Austin specifically stated, "1 am not in the wedding business, believe me." (N.T. page 105, lines 24-25). Thus, it is clear that Condition 7 comports with the testimony provided by Mr. Austin on behalf of Lettermen, Inc. at the hearing. Therefore, we affirm the Board's Condition 7 limiting the use of the banquet facility, with the noted stipulation of the parties. 9