Borough of Fleetwood v. Zoning Hearing Board

649 A.2d 651, 538 Pa. 536, 1994 Pa. LEXIS 610
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 4, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 649 A.2d 651 (Borough of Fleetwood v. Zoning Hearing Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Borough of Fleetwood v. Zoning Hearing Board, 649 A.2d 651, 538 Pa. 536, 1994 Pa. LEXIS 610 (Pa. 1994).

Opinion

OPINION

MONTEMURO, Justice.

Appellee, Turkey Hill Minit Markets (Turkey Hill), currently leases property at 200 West Main Street, in the Borough of Fleetwood (Borough). 1 The property is located in a C-l General Commercial Zone pursuant to the applicable Borough Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance), and Turkey Hill presently operates a retail convenience store upon the site. On September 14, 1990, Turkey Hill applied to the Fleetwood Zoning Hearing Board (Board) for a special exception and for a variance under the Ordinance requesting permission to install, a single self-service gasoline pump and canopy in the parking lot of its Fleetwood store. In addition, on October 10, 1990, *539 Turkey Hill appealed to the Board from the Fleetwood Zoning Officer’s denial of a building permit for the gasoline pump.

A hearing was held on November 20, 1990. At that hearing the application for a special exception and a variance to install the gas pump was withdrawn and the appeal from the Zoning Officer’s denial of the building permit was the only claim pursued by Turkey Hill. In a written decision issued by the Board on January 10, 1991, 2 the Board overturned the Zoning Officer’s decision and concluded that the proposed gas pump is a “customary accessory use to the main use as a convenience store and is clearly incidental to the principal use as required by Section 403.2 of the Fleetwood Borough Ordinance.” Board’s Decision, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 133a.

The Borough appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. Turkey Hill duly intervened and filed a petition for bond pursuant to section 1003-a(d) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. 3 Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended and reenacted, Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. §§ 10101-11202. The trial court took no additional evidence and by order dated September 13, 1991, the court of common pleas reversed the decision of the Board and denied Turkey Hill’s application for a building permit. In response to this adverse ruling, Turkey Hill appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on October 4, 1991. On November 20, 1992, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s determination to the degree that it reinstated the Board’s findings and conclusions, 151 Pa.Commw. 642, 616 A.2d 773 (Table). The Borough petitioned this Court for allowance of appeal which we granted on July 19, 1993, 535 Pa. 624, 629 A.2d 1384.

The Borough presents the following issues for our review:

*540 I. Whether Turkey Hill must obtain a special exception and or a variance in order to operate a gasoline pump on the site of its existing convenience store?
II. Whether the operation of a gasoline pump on the site of its existing convenience store is a customary accessory use?
III. Whether the Board’s conclusion of law, which provides that Turkey Hill will comply with all safety requirements including ingress and egress to its property, requires that Turkey Hill comply with section 802.10 of the Borough’s Ordinance?

The first two issues raised by the Borough are in fact the same issue approached from two different directions. In its memorandum opinion, the Commonwealth Court correctly phrased this issue as: “Whether the Board erred or abused its discretion in permitting the proposed self-service gasoline island as an accessory use to the principal use of a retail convenience store.” Borough of Fleetwood v. Turkey Hill, No. 2143 C.D.1991 (Pa.Commw. filed Nov. 20, 1992). If the Board erred, then Turkey Hill would be required to obtain a special exception or variance before it could install the pump.

When the trial court takes no additional evidence in zoning appeals, this Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether the zoning hearing board committed an error of law or manifestly abused its discretion. Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550, 462 A.2d 637 (1983). An abuse of discretion occurs when the board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. Substantial evidence is that relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached. Id.

The sections of the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance applicable to this case are as follows:

*541 403.1 Permitted Uses
a. Retail stores or shops or service establishments for the conduction of any retail business or service;
403.2 Permitted Accessory Uses — Located on the same lot with the permitted principal use
d. customary accessory uses and buildings, provided such are clearly incidental to the principal use.
403.3 Uses Permitted with Zoning Hearing Board Approval (Special Exception)
a. Gasoline service stations in accordance with provisions of Section 802.10;

Fleetwood, Pa., Zoning Ordinance No. 375 (May 29, 1973). The terms “accessory use” and “gasoline service station” are defined in Article II, Section 201.4:

Accessory Use: A use customarily incidental and subordinate to and located on the same lot occupied by the principal use to which it relates.
Gasoline Service Station: A structure or area used for the sale of gasoline or motor fuel which may include facilities for lubricating, washing, sale or accessories, and otherwise minor servicing of motor vehicles, but not including body repair or painting thereof.

Id.

The Borough argues that the installation of a gasoline pump transforms the retail convenience store into a. gasoline service station and relies upon V.S.H. Realty, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Sharon Hill, 27 Pa.Commw. 32, 365 A.2d 670 (1976), for that assertion. In V.S.H. Realty, Inc. the appellant, V.S.H. Realty, applied to the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Sharon Hill for a special exception to construct a convenience store and gasoline pumps on a lot located in a commercial zoning district. Retail stores, hotels, restaurants, auto repair shops, and motor vehicle service stations were permitted uses in C Commercial Districts in *542 Sharon Hill. Id. Uses of the same general character as the permitted uses were allowed by special exception. Id. V.S.H. Realty argued that the gasoline operation was of the same general character as a retail store and therefore, a variance was unnecessary.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

E.J. Markey, III v. Yardley Borough ZHB
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2025
AUUE, Inc. v. Boro of Jefferson Hills ZHB
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2024
D.R. Baltzer v. ZHB Strasburg Borough
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2023
A. Sabatini v. ZHB of Fayette County, PA
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
B.J. Maffeo v. Windber Borough ZHB
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2019
G.A. Reihner and J.A. Reihner v. The City of Scranton ZHB
176 A.3d 396 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Slice of Life, LLC and v. Kleyman v. Hamilton Twp. ZHB and Hamilton Twp.
164 A.3d 633 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
649 A.2d 651, 538 Pa. 536, 1994 Pa. LEXIS 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borough-of-fleetwood-v-zoning-hearing-board-pa-1994.