Twp. of Cranberry v. Spencer

249 A.3d 9

TOWNSHIP OF CRANBERRY

v.Randy J. SPENCER, Appellant

No. 375 C.D. 2020

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued February 8, 2021

Decided March 24, 2021

Timothy D. McNair, Erie, for Appellant.

J. Andrew Salemme, Pittsburgh, for Appellee.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge, HONORABLE J. ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER

Randy J. Spencer appeals from a March 13, 2020 Order (Order) of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County (trial court), which imposed fines for six different properties (Properties) owned by Spencer at six separate docket numbers pursuant to complaints filed by the Township of Cranberry based on Spencer operating a junkyard in violation of Township ordinances. Before this Court, Spencer argues that, although he filed only one notice of appeal, he preserved his arguments on the merits as to all six properties. As for the merits, Spencer argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the fines, the trial court committed an error of law in determining that the Township's ordinance does not require business use for a property to be considered a junkyard, and the trial court erred in dismissing his selective enforcement challenge. However, under Commonwealth v. Walker , 646 Pa. 456, 185 A.3d 969 (2018), Spencer was required to file individual notices of appeal for each of the six cases, as they had not been consolidated before the trial court. Under these specific facts, we are constrained to quash Spencer's appeal as to the five orders entered at the trial court's dockets 705-2019 to 709-2019, from which no appeals were filed. We do not quash the notice of appeal which was properly filed from the order issued at trial court docket 704-2019, involving the Deep Hollow Property. Upon review of the record, we determine that the trial court made no error in imposing the fine for the violations on the Deep Hollow Property. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order in that case.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2019, the Township Zoning Officer (Zoning Officer) issued six zoning enforcement notices (Notices) to Spencer for violations at the Properties identified as follows: the "Deep Hollow Property," trial court docket 704-2019; the "Waugaman Property," trial court docket 705-2019; the "Hill Property," trial court docket 706-2019; the "Trailer #1 Property," trial court docket 707-2019; the "Trailer #2 Property," trial court docket 708-2019; and the "Goodman Property," trial court docket 709-2019.¹

Five of the Notices, for the Deep Hollow Property, the Waugaman Property, the Hill Property, the Trailer #1 Property, and the Trailer #2 Property, were for violations of Sections 195-4 and 195-11 of the CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, ZONING ORDINANCE (2012) (Zoning Ordinance), Zoning Ordinance §§ 195-4, 195-11.² These five Notices informed Spencer he was located in an A-1 Conservation District and that a junkyard is not a permitted use in that district. The Notices stated that Spencer had 7 days to begin removing the abandoned motor vehicles from each of the Properties and 30 days to completely do so. The 5 Notices also advised Spencer of his right to appeal the Notices to the Township Zoning Hearing Board within 30 days.

The sixth Notice, for the Goodman Property, which is located in a different district, informed Spencer that he was in violation of Section 132-4(D) of the CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (2018) (Property Maintenance Code), which limits the number of abandoned or junked vehicles on one's property.³ Property Maintenance Code § 132-4(D). That Notice required Spencer to begin removing the vehicles from the Goodman Property within 20 days and to completely do so within 30 days. All six Notices warned Spencer that failure to comply could result in fines being imposed. Spencer did not appeal any of the Notices or remedy the violations.

The Township then filed six civil complaints with a Magisterial District Judge (MDJ), seeking to enforce the six Notices. The MDJ entered six judgments in the Township's favor and against Spencer, imposing fines and costs in the amount of $609.25 for each of the Properties. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 10a.) Spencer then appealed the six MDJ judgments to the trial court. The Township filed one complaint for each of the six Properties asserting the alleged violations were conclusively established by Spencer's failure to appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board. Accordingly, for each of the Properties, the Township asked the trial court to grant judgment in its favor for $21,500, representing $500 per day for each day in which Spencer was violating the Code, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees. (Compl. ¶ 15, R.R. at 6a.) Spencer subsequently filed answers with new matter, and the Township filed replies to the new matter. Importantly, at no time did either party move to consolidate, nor did the trial court sua sponte consolidate, the six matters.

On March 10, 2020, a joint evidentiary hearing was held in the six cases. The Township called the Zoning Officer to testify. The Zoning Officer testified as follows. The Zoning Officer had 10 years of experience in zoning enforcement and worked for the Township for 2½ years. (R.R. at 41a.) The Zoning Officer inspected Spencer's Properties "numerous times." (Id . at 44a.) The Zoning Officer testified as to sending the Notices, from which Spencer did not appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board, and filing the complaints with the MDJ, who ruled in the Township's favor. The Zoning Officer cited other individuals during this time for their properties and they generally complied and worked with the Zoning Officer to remedy the violations, so they were not required to pay fines, (id . at 57a, 70a, 72a-74a), whereas Spencer did not take any action, (id . at 45a, 56a, 85a-86a). On cross-examination, the Zoning Officer was asked about William Rodibaugh, an individual who was sent notices by the Zoning Officer related to Rodibaugh's property, and who testified later at the hearing. The Zoning Officer explained that Rodibaugh was permitted to contest the validity of the notices because he contacted and met with the Zoning Officer several times before the 30-day notice expired. (Id . at 84a-85a, 88a.) The Zoning Officer filed the citation with the MDJ but withdrew it upon Rodibaugh working with the Township and demonstrating a nonconforming use. (Id . at 77a, 89a-90a.)

Spencer offered the testimony of the Township's former Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer (Former Zoning Officer), Rodibaugh, and testified on his own behalf. The Former Zoning Officer testified as follows. On the day of his hiring, the Former Zoning Officer was told of ongoing issues with Spencer and to give special attention to Spencer and his Properties. (Id . at 106a-07a.) The Former Zoning Officer claimed that other individuals were issued notices of violation "in order to be able to cite [ ] Spencer." (Id . at 113a.) He was told to issue around 9 to 10 notices of violations to others, and if they complied, the Former Zoning Officer could withdraw the notices. (Id . at 113a-14a.) The Former Zoning Officer refused to do so because he "was not going to fabricate charges." (Id . at 114a.) During cross-examination, the Former Zoning Officer, who was terminated by the Township in 2017, admitted that he currently had a pending lawsuit against the Township. (Id . at 118a, 121a.)

Spencer also presented the testimony of Rodibaugh, who testified as follows. Rodibaugh received a notice of violation and was ultimately fined by the MDJ. (Id . at 128a-29a.) Following the MDJ's decision but before the 30-day period to appeal to the trial court expired, Rodibaugh communicated with the Zoning Officer and offered evidence⁴ that he had a lawful, nonconforming use. (Id . at 129a, 132a.)

Spencer testified on his own behalf as follows. Spencer attempted to work with the Township to remedy the current issues for over 20 years. (Id . at 135a.) In 2016, Spencer met with the Township to discuss moving his vehicles from the Properties to another property, which is naturally screened and would qualify for a special exception under the Township's Zoning Ordinance. (Id . at 139a.) Spencer applied for a junkyard license but received no response. (Id . at 140a.) Spencer also previously applied for a conditional use permit many times, but the Township has not acted on those applications. (Id . at 141a, 145a-46a.) In response to questions from the trial court, Spencer explained that the Deep Hollow Road and the Waugaman Properties are separate but "adjoining parcels," the Trailer #1 Property and the Trailer #2 Property, both on Garden Lane, are also adjoining, and the Goodman Property and Waugaman Property "touch each other." (Id . at 151a-52a.) When asked if the Properties were "four [ ] basically separate non-contiguous properties," Spencer replied "yes." (Id . at 152a.)

On March 13, 2020, the trial court issued its Opinion and Order in which all six docket numbers were listed in the caption. The trial court found that each of the Properties was used as a "junkyard" as defined in Section 195-6A of the Zoning Ordinance. The trial court dismissed the testimony of the Former Zoning Officer, stating the Former Zoning Officer was incorrect in his "personal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance," the Former Zoning Officer's refusal to enforce does not foreclose future action being taken against an individual, Spencer had the ability to pursue other avenues beyond appealing the decision of the MDJ, and selective enforcement was not proven in this instance. (Trial Ct. Op. at 4.) The trial court's only issue with the MDJ decision related to the fines. The trial court noted that fining each "parcel" was incorrect and instead it should have been "land," which is the term used in the definition of junkyard under Section 195-6A of the Zoning Ordinance. The trial court explained that "two adjoining parcels having...