MEDIA – The City of Chester has countered a petition from a Delaware County banquet hall owner who alleged that the City violated his constitutional rights by revoking a zoning permit issued to him based on erroneous information, by saying the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Ronald Harmon of Glen Mills filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 2 versus the City of Chester.
“Petitioner is owner of the property located at 812-18 Welsh Street, Chester PA 19013. Petitioner along with his wife Roxzanne Johnson own and operate a banquet hall through their company R&R Paradise, LLC. The property is currently zoned C-2/R (General Commercial/Residential) District. According to Article 1237.01(b) of Chester City Zoning Ordinance, a restaurant or banquet hall without a drive through services is permitted by right (emphasis added) in this zoning district. The ordinance also requires that certain uses provide off-street parking pursuant to Article 1357,” the petition said.
“In the applicability of Article 1357, except in the Commercial Business District, each use that is newly developed, enlarged, significantly changed in type of use, or increased in number of establishments shall provide and maintain off-street parking spaces in accordance with the Table below and the regulations of this Article. A banquet hall use is not specifically listed in the Table of off-street parking requirements, however, ‘uses not specifically listed in the Table...shall comply with the requirements for the most similar use. Given that banquet hall and restaurant uses are grouped together in the ordinance section specifying their allowance, parking requirements for banquet halls have customarily been the same as restaurants. The ordinance requires one parking spot per five seats, or three total spaces for a use without customer seats, plus an additional off-street parking space for each 1.2 employees.”
On March 1, Harmon filed an Application for Zoning Permit for use of the property as a Banquet Hall and on March 5, a Zoning Permit was issued at permit No. ZP2-06-2. No special exception or variance was required.
“In obtaining this permit, petitioner and/or his agent issued all documentation required by the City of Chester for approval. The issued Zoning Permit states on its face, ‘Applicant provided documentation of the use of a parking lot behind the property.’ On March 11, a Use & Occupancy Certificate was issued at License No. 8014486 by the Department of Public Safety. The Zoning Permit and subsequent Use & Occupancy Certificate were not issued with any conditions,” the petition stated.
“Petitioner satisfied the parking requirements of the Ordinance by securing the use of a parking lot located at 0 E. 9th Street in Chester, Pennsylvania, directly adjacent to the property. In early May 2021, petitioner received a letter from respondent’s agent, a certain Peter Rykard, Planning Director/Zoning Officer for the City of Chester, stating the property ‘was issued a zoning permit contingent upon the returning to the Planning Department an updated parking plan with designated parking spaces for use for a Banquet Hall.’ The letter goes on to state that the zoning permit will be revoked if the said ‘updated parking plan’ is not received.”
To the contrary of the respondent’s belief, the petitioner said he was not issued the zoning permit for banquet hall use with any conditions as “contingent upon” the petitioner’s submission of any “updated parking plan.”
“In late August 2021, petitioner received a second letter from respondent. This letter states in part ‘it has come to our attention that your Banquet Hall no longer has the parking arrangement with which you obtained your zoning permit to operate your business.’ At no time was petitioner’s authorization to use the parking lot withdrawn nor even reduced by the parking lot’s owner,” the petitioner said.
“On or about Oct. 18, 2021, a notice was placed upon petitioner’s property stating that the ‘building is not to be occupied or rented without the approval of the Department of Public Safety’, and an Unsafe Structure notice was placed upon petitioner’s building ordering petitioner to ‘stop, cease and desist’ all activities at the property. On or about Oct. 30, 2021, Chester Police officers entered the property after, upon information, being flagged down by the owner of a nearby banquet hall to alert them of an alleged violation of the ordinance. Petitioner’s banquet hall use does comply with the ordinance and all plans and applications submitted in support of the issuance of the zoning permit were previously approved with no conditions.”
According to the petitioner, the actions of the respondent are “arbitrary and unreasonable, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, have caused damage to the business reputation of the petitioner, in violation of petitioner’s due process rights under the United States and Pennsylvania constitutions and are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”
UPDATE
The City filed preliminary objections in the matter on March 9, charging, among other things, that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies – based on the petitioner supposedly providing no response to notices of violation he received in May 2021 and August 2021, and not appealing to the Zoning Hearing Board, as was his right to do.
“The Zoning Hearing Board is granted exclusive jurisdiction by the Municipalities Planning Code over appeals from the determination of a municipality’s zoning officer, applications for variances and applications for special exceptions. The Municipalities Planning Code sets forth a specific procedure for determination of appeals from the determinations of zoning officers. Those procedures are set forth in Article IX 53 P.S. Sections 10901-109118. The MPC also sets for specific and clear procedures for judicial review of any Zoning Hearing Board decision at Article X-A-Appeals to Court 53 P.S. Sections 11001 A-11005-A,” per the objections.
“The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a party to exhaust all adequate and available administrative remedies before the right of judicial review arises. The doctrine is a court-made rule intended to prevent premature judicial intervention into the administrative process. Petitioner has failed to exhaust his statutory remedy of appeal to the City of Chester Zoning Hearing Board despite notice and has refused to do so.”
For a lone count of declaratory relief, the plaintiff is seeking the Court to enter judgment in its favor, declaring the issued zoning permit and use and occupancy certificate as valid.
The plaintiff is represented by Jeffery Young Jr. of Legis Group, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Carl W. Ewald of the Law Offices of Carl W. Ewald, in Media.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2021-009756
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com