Opinion
No. 853 C.D. 2013
11-15-2013
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George R. Light, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT
George R. Light appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court) fining him $20,000, plus fees and costs, for the unlawful accumulation of junk, trash, debris and unlicensed vehicles on property that he owns with his sister, Linda Light. The trial court gave Light 90 days to clean up his property and sell it. During that 90 days, Bethel Township was barred from enforcing the trial court's judgment. Light contends that the record evidence did not support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the trial court had no authority to order him to sell his property. We affirm.
Linda Light has filed a separate appeal, which we have designated as the lead opinion. See Light v. Commonwealth (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 855 C.D. 2013, filed November 15, 2013). In his brief, Light describes the penalty as $40,000, but that represents the total of the penalties imposed on him and his sister.
Light's property has been the subject of enforcement actions for several years. In 2009, Light was cited two times for allowing junk to accumulate on his property. This was resolved by a plea agreement obligating him to pay a fine of $1,000 for each citation. In February 2012, the Township again cited Light. This resulted in Light receiving an additional fine and agreeing to clean up the property or list it for sale to avoid future violations. He did not do so.
On August 15, 2012, the Township issued two citations, which are the subject of this appeal, charging Light with several violations of the Bethel Township Unsafe Property and Structure Ordinance (Ordinance). Specifically, it charged him with two violations of Section 5 of the Ordinance, entitled "Property." The first citation arose from Section 5(a)(3), which states:
(a) Yards, Open Lots, Parking Areas. No person shall permit or maintain:
BETHEL TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE, ORD. NO. 2008-08 (2008), §5(a)(3); Reproduced Record at 12a (R.R. ___). The second citation arose from Section 5(c)(4) of the Ordinance, which states:
***
(3) Objectionable materials to accumulate and be blown around the surrounding neighborhood[.]
(c) Miscellaneous Provisions. No person shall permit or maintain:
BETHEL TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE, §5(c)(4); R.R. 12a-13a. The citations also notified Light that under Section 9(c) of the Ordinance he could be fined for each citation, and 21 days after the citation, a daily fine of $1,000 could be imposed for each citation.
***
4) Accumulate, store, maintain or otherwise allow the accumulation of Municipal waste, Garbage, Refuse, or similar material except for such limited storage of the same awaiting prompt removal by licensed companies or personnel.
Specifically Section 9(c) of the Ordinance provides that it
shall be a summary offense, punishable by a fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollar ($1,000.00) for each offense. The fine shall be in addition to any and all costs incurred and reimbursed to the Township in the event the Township must remedy the violation. The fine shall commence on the 21st day after notice is issued by the Township. Each day thereafter that the violation remains shall be considered a separate offense. The Court, may, in its discretion also impose imprisonment for each violation according to law.BETHEL TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE, §9(c), R.R. 14a.
On October 23, 2012, a magisterial district judge found Light guilty of violating Sections 5(a)(3) and 5(c)(4) of the Ordinance. Light was ordered to pay $10,000 for each violation. Light then appealed to the trial court, which conducted de novo review.
At the trial, the Township presented several witnesses. Robin Royer, the Township's zoning officer, testified that she issued the two citations. Township Supervisor Randall Haag testified about his inspection of Light's property in March 2012. He described piles of garbage cans, garbage bags, and tires. The property also contained numerous piles of wooden and plastic rubbish, as well as abandoned vehicles and house trailers. Haag took numerous photographs that were entered into evidence. Herbert Zechman, the Chairman of the Township's Board of Supervisors, testified that he visited the property several times. Most recently, on September 21, 2012, he examined the property and took photographs. His observations of the debris on the property confirmed those of Haag. He added that house trailers on the property were filled with junk. Further, he saw no attempt by Light or his sister to clean up their property.
The photographs in the certified and reproduced record are in black and white. The Township states that the photographs submitted to the trial court were in color. Further, Light has reduced the size of the photographs in the reproduced record, making them impossible to examine. The Township has provided colored copies of the photographs as an appendix to its brief. The photographs taken by Haag are identified as Exhibit 3, Nos. 1-70.
The photographs are identified as Exhibit 4, Nos. 71-86.
Light's sister, Linda, testified. She explained that the property was purchased to store "stuff" that she and her brother "want to keep or try to sell [at flea markets]." R.R. 7a. She did not concede that the items were junk or garbage. Some of the items, such as copper wiring and air conditioning units had been stolen. Linda Light asserted that the items stored on their property could not be deemed junk if they were valuable enough to steal. She agreed that the photographs introduced as evidence accurately depicted the condition of the property.
Light also testified. He testified that they were trying to clean up some sections of the property but were busy with doctor appointments. He noted that the property has a gate and no trespassing signs, but items continue to be stolen. He agreed that the property has remained in basically the same condition since 2009.
Light explained that they listed the property for sale, through a realtor, at $150,000, and an adjoining neighbor offered to pay the asking price and to take responsibility for remediating the property. The Lights rejected the offer because the offer was contingent on an immediate closing, which would not give the Lights time to remove items they wished to keep. In addition, based on a conversation with another realtor, the Lights decided that the property was worth $300,000.
The trial court found that the condition of the property had remained unchanged since 2009. The trial court explained as follows:
The evidence was clearly sufficient to find [Light] guilty of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The pictures are worth a thousand words. They clearly show that the accumulation of trash and rubbish has continued unabated and that [Light has] not cleaned up the property as originally agreed in December 2010. The Township has been lenient with [Light] considering the fact that the fines could have accumulated for each day the condition of the property remained unabated. [Light has] had ample notice and [was] given ample time since November 2009 to cure the violations.Trial Court Opinion at 6-7. The Township then argued that Section 9(c) of the Ordinance authorized the imposition of fines from August 15, 2012, onward, which would total several hundred thousand dollars. The trial court fined Light $10,000 for each violation, for a total of $20,000. The trial court informed the Township that if the situation was not remediated in 90 days, it should "take my judgment and enter it and if necessary, sell it yourself at auction[.]" R.R. 9a. Specifically, the sentencing orders provided that Light was given "90 days to clean up the property and sell, after that the township may come and execute on the property." Judgments of Sentence, Light's Brief, Attachments 3 and 5.
Light now appeals to this Court, raising the following three issues. First, he contends that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to sell the property. Third, he contends that the fine was excessive and illegal.
Our scope of review of a trial court's determination of an appeal of a summary conviction is whether there has been an error of law, or whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence. Commonwealth v. DeLoach, 714 A.2d 483, 485 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).
This Court addressed, and rejected, the same issues in the companion case of Light v. Commonwealth (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 855 C.D. 2013, filed November 15, 2013), which involved a judgment by the trial court against Light's sister Linda for identical Ordinance violations on the subject property. Our analysis is dispositive in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Light and his sister received a consolidated hearing before the trial court. R.R. 3a. --------
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2013, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County dated March 25, 2013, in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge