Abington Little League, Inc. v. Glenburn Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

1

Abington Little League, Inc. v. Glenburn Township Zoning Hearing Board

Appeal of: David Druck, Marilyn Druck, Charles Sansky, Lynn Sansky, Gerard O'Sullivan, Cara O'Sullivan, and Marilyn Costa

Abington Little League, Inc., Appellant v. Glenburn Township Zoning Hearing Board

Nos. 895 C.D. 2021, 925 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

March 7, 2023

OPINION NOT REPORTED

Argued: December 15, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, PRESIDENT JUDGE EMERITA

David Druck, Marilyn Druck, Charles Sansky, Lynn Sansky, Gerard O'Sullivan, Cara O'Sullivan, and Marilyn Costa (collectively, Objectors) have appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (trial court) that reversed a decision of the Glenburn Township Zoning Hearing Board (Zoning Board or Zoning Hearing Board) to deny Abington Little League, Inc. (Little League or Abington) a special exception for the installation of lighting at two of its baseball fields, along with a sound system. In reversing the Zoning Board, the trial court imposed six conditions on the special exception that limited the hours that the lighting and sound system could be used. Little League, designated as cross-appellant, has appealed those conditions.^[1] After review, we affirm the trial court's decision on the special exception and reverse the trial court's imposition of conditions on Little League's use of the lights and sound system.

Background

Little League is a non-profit corporation that owns the Ackerly Fields Complex (Ackerly Fields), approximately 30 acres in size. Ackerly Fields consists of five baseball fields dugouts, batting cages, a concession stand, a playground, an equipment shed, bleachers, parking facilities, a walking trail, and upgraded sewage disposal facilities. Portions of the complex remain undeveloped. Ackerly Fields is located in the M-1 District, Light Manufacturing. Glenburn Township Zoning Ordinance, §201.1 (December 2003) (Zoning Ordinance); Reproduced Record at 80 (R.R.__).^[2] The intent of the M-1 District is stated as follows:

Based on location, existing uses and facilities, and the relationship to other land uses, to reserve those areas in the Township best suited for manufacturing and industry, uses with potential for greater community impact, and other offensive uses.

Zoning Ordinance, §201.2; R.R. 81. The Zoning Board described Ackerly Fields as "a grandfathered use in an M-1 zoning district." Zoning Board Remand Adjudication 4/1/2019, at 6; R.R. 57.

In 2017, Little League sought a special exception from the Zoning Board to install lights on two of its five fields. Little League explained that the lights would be used for night games during the regular spring season, which runs from April through June. The lights would also be used for All-Star games one or two nights per week in June and July, with three games per week possible but unlikely. Finally, Little League would use the lights during Fall Ball, which occurs in September and October. Little League does not use its baseball fields from November to March.

In its application to the Zoning Board, Little League requested (1) a special exception because an outdoor lighting installation at a baseball field is not a use specifically allowed or denied in any zoning district;^[3] (2) an interpretation of the outdoor lighting provisions in the Zoning Ordinance; and (3) in the alternative, a dimensional variance from the height limitation on the lighting poles should the Zoning Ordinance be construed to impose such a limitation. Little League sought to install six lighting poles on one of its larger fields and four lighting poles on one of its smaller fields. The poles on the larger field would be between 60 and 80 feet high, and the poles on the smaller field would be between 60 and 70 feet high. The light poles will use LED lights that will be directed downward to focus on the fields. The chosen lighting technology eliminates any glare and prevents almost all light from spilling beyond Little League property borders.

The Zoning Board referred the matter to the Township's Planning Commission, which considered the special exception at a meeting on May 25, 2017. At the meeting, Little League presented testimony from its president, Ryan Mitvalsky, and Robert Zoeller, a technical consultant with Musco Sports Lighting, an international company that specializes in lighting for sports facilities and stadiums. Zoeller is a member of the Illumination Engineering Society of North America and qualified as a lighting expert in six states. Zoeller testified that Little League Baseball guidelines are more stringent than those of the Illumination Engineering Society of North America, and Little League's proposal for Ackerly Fields meets the more stringent guidelines.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of Little League's request for a special exception. The Planning Commission believed the Zoning Board lacked jurisdiction to consider Little League's application because baseball fields are a use permitted in a zoning district where private recreational facilities are authorized, and lighting is an accessory use to the principal use of a recreational facility.^[4] Accordingly, the Planning Commission determined Little League's proposed lighting installation was not a use that could be permitted as a special exception. It also found that Little League's proposed light poles were not compatible with the existing, mainly residential, use in the surrounding area. As such, the proposal was not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In regard to the alternate request for a variance from the 25-foot height limitations, the Planning Commission found that Little League did not prove its proposal constituted the minimum variance needed.

Thereafter, the Zoning Board held hearings on July 10, and August 16, 2017. Essentially adopting the Planning Commission's reasoning, the Zoning Board held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant a special exception request but, in any case, the grant of a special exception was not appropriate. The Zoning Board denied Little League's request for an interpretation of the lighting provision in the Zoning Ordinance, finding that Little League satisfied some, but not all, of the applicable standards. Finally, the Zoning Board held that Little League had not sustained its burden for a variance and denied this request as well.

Little League appealed the Zoning Board's decision to the trial court, which heard oral argument on February 2, 2018. On September 18, 2018, the trial court sustained Little League's appeal and remanded the matter to the Zoning Board.

Noting that a private ballfield is not included in, or excluded from, the Zoning Ordinance's definition of private recreational facilities, the trial court concluded that the Zoning Board erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the special exception application. On the merits, the trial court also determined that the Zoning Board erred in concluding that Little League's proposed outdoor lighting project did not comply with Sections 601.8 E. (Nuisances) and 601.8 F. (Height) of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Zoning Ordinance states that the "standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society shall be used" for the design of a lighting installation. Zoning Ordinance, §601.8; R.R. 159. The trial court identified inconsistencies both in the Zoning Ordinance provisions on lighting standards and in the Zoning Board's analysis thereof. The trial court explained as follows:

So on the one hand, we have an Ordinance requiring proposed projects to comply with specified standards and a project which complies with those standards. On the other hand, we have a conclusion of the Zoning Board that a project complying with specifically mandated standards nonetheless violates the same Ordinance. Additionally, the Board found that Abington's proposal satisfied the requirements for shielding (601.8 C.) and glare (601.8 D.) (Findings and Conclusions, p. 35) but at the same time was somehow inadequate with respect to shielding (601.8 E. Nuisances). Additionally, Abington's proposal called for light standards ranging in height from 60-80 feet while the Ordinance lists a maximum height of light standards at 25 feet (with exceptions that do not apply here (601.8 F.)). So in effect, the standards mandated by the Ordinance are in turn negated by the Ordinance.

Trial Court Op., 9/18/2018, at 11; R.R. 47 (emphasis added). These inconsistencies in the Zoning Ordinance led the trial court to conclude that there was no applicable height limitation and, thus, a variance was not needed. It explained:

Since Abington employed the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society, as it was required to do by the Zoning Ordinance, see Section 601.8 Lighting and Glare, and its proposal was consistent with the mandated standards with respect to the height of the poles, was a variance even necessary? We conclude that it was not.

Trial Court Op., 9/18/2018, at 12-13; R.R. 48-49. The trial court remanded the matter to the Zoning Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On remand, the Zoning Board conducted hearings over two days. On January 9, 2019, Mitvalsky and Zoeller again testified. In addition, Little League presented the testimony of Sue Savitski, a traffic engineer; Chris O'Boyle, a professional realtor and Little League board member; Scott Douglas Allen, a registered architect; and Robert Naegele, a civil engineer. On February 18, 2019, real estate appraiser Leonard Silvestri and Thomas Shepstone, a planning consultant, testified for Obj...