Background
Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. applied to build an asphalt plant in Butler Township’s Mineral Industrial District. The zoning officer denied the permit, and the Butler Township Zoning Hearing Board upheld that decision. Hawbaker appealed, arguing that the ordinance was ambiguous about the district in which asphalt plants were allowed and that Pennsylvania’s rule favoring the landowner required approval.
The dispute overlapped with Hawbaker’s separate substantive-validity challenge decided the same day. The ordinance’s use table placed asphalt plants in the Industrial District by special exception, while definitions, district-purpose language, and a detailed provision addressing mineral extraction and asphalt operations pointed toward the Mineral Industrial District. In this permit appeal, however, the application itself created an additional issue.
Sections 602(28)(E) through (G) imposed detailed requirements concerning matters associated with the regulated operation. The Board found that Hawbaker’s submission did not contain information needed to show compliance. Hawbaker maintained that those provisions did not require the information to appear in a permit application and also challenged the participation of neighboring landowners David and Stacy Rowlands.
The Court’s Holding
President Judge Cohn Jubelirer wrote for the majority in affirming the permit denial. Consistent with the companion case, the court viewed the ordinance as ambiguous about the district placement of asphalt plants. The surrounding provisions associated the use with mineral extraction and could not be ignored in favor of the use table alone. Ambiguous zoning language generally is construed in favor of the property owner and the least restrictive use of land.
That interpretive principle did not entitle Hawbaker to a permit on an incomplete record. The court held that the Board properly required the application to supply information demonstrating compliance with the specific operational criteria in Section 602(28)(E) through (G). A zoning applicant bears the burden of showing entitlement under the governing standards. The Board did not have to approve first and determine later whether the proposal met requirements material to the use.
Although the trial court had not relied on that precise rationale, an appellate court may affirm a correct result on any ground supported by the record. The application deficiency therefore supplied an independent basis to uphold the order. The majority also affirmed the neighboring owners’ intervention because their proximity and potential effects from the proposed use gave them a legally enforceable interest.
Judge Wojcik concurred in the result but disagreed with the ambiguity analysis. As in the companion appeal, he read the table of uses as the sole operative provision assigning uses to districts and believed it clearly prohibited an asphalt plant in the Mineral Industrial District. On that reasoning, he would have affirmed without treating the ordinance as ambiguous.
Key Takeaways
- Construing an ambiguous zoning ordinance in favor of the landowner does not excuse failure to submit information required to prove compliance.
- An applicant should address every use-specific criterion in the initial permit record, even when contesting the municipality’s interpretation.
- The Commonwealth Court may affirm on a record-supported ground the trial court did not adopt.
- Neighbors with property interests potentially affected by a proposed industrial use may intervene in the land-use appeal.
Why It Matters
This companion decision separates two issues developers sometimes combine: what the ordinance permits and whether the application proves compliance. Winning an interpretive argument does not establish entitlement to a permit if required plans, operational details, or other evidence are missing. Applicants should build a complete alternative record while preserving objections to district placement or ordinance validity.
For zoning boards, the ruling supports decisions organized around specific submission failures rather than broad policy objections. Findings should identify the ordinance criterion, the information required to evaluate it, and what the application omitted. Land-use counsel should also recognize the appellate doctrine at work: a legally sustainable record can preserve a denial even when the trial court’s stated interpretation does not survive review.