Harrisburg Gardens, Inc. v. Susquehanna Township Zoning Hearing Board

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of Harrisburg Gardens, Inc.'s land-use appeal concerning its nursery and garden center. The court held that the business's expanded operations, including increased stone sales, truck traffic, storage, noise, dust, and related activities, constituted a new and dissimilar use rather than a permissible natural expansion of a prior nonconforming use. The court also held that Harrisburg Gardens waived its challenges to the trial court's remand and the admission of additional testimony.

Holdings

1. A landowner may naturally expand a nonconforming business only when the proposed use is sufficiently similar to the existing use and the expansion is necessary to accommodate increased trade; mere similarity or increased volume alone is insufficient. The Board properly found that Harrisburg Gardens' substantially different and more intensive stone-oriented operation was a new and dissimilar use.
2. A property owner seeking to expand a nonconforming use bears the burden of proving the existence of a prior lawful nonconforming use and must provide an evidentiary record defining its present extent and historical background.
3. The Board's findings concerning the predecessor's traditional nursery operation, Harrisburg Gardens' stone-heavy sales, and the increased impacts of the current operation were supported by testimony and the record.
4. Harrisburg Gardens waived its challenge to the trial court's remand of the additional-evidence motion by failing to include that issue in its Rule 1925(b) statement, and waived its challenge to the additional testimony and exhibits by failing to object after its continuance was denied and counsel left the hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Harrisburg Gardens' expanded stone and landscaping-materials operation constituted a natural expansion or continuation of the predecessor's lawful nonconforming nursery use.
2. Whether the zoning hearing board's findings concerning the nature and sales composition of the predecessor and current businesses were supported by the record.
3. Whether the trial court erred by remanding Harrisburg Gardens' motion for additional evidence to the zoning hearing board.
4. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike testimony and exhibits received during the remand hearing.
5. Whether Harrisburg Gardens waived its challenges by failing to raise them in its Rule 1925(b) statement or before the zoning hearing board.

Disposition

affirmed