The Commonwealth Court recently determined that when applying mandatory connection ordinances, adjoining or adjacent property owners are subject to the ordinance regardless of how far their “principal building” is from the sewer line. It further held that difficulty in connecting to a sewer line is not grounds for exempting property owners from the ordinance.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Municipal Law (Page 8 of 9)
Gettysburg Borough’s retroactive application of a construction code amendment as it applied to the emergency escape access of a property owner’s rental apartments was recently challenged in Commonwealth Court. In its July 16, 2015 opinion the Court affirmed an order of the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, denying Four Square Property, LLC’s (Four Square) appeal from a decision of the Code Enforcement Appeals Board (Board) of Gettysburg Borough, which found Four Square violated the borough’s Property Maintenance Code by failing to have adequate egress for two basement apartments it rented to tenants. The Board upheld Four Square’s violation of the Borough’s Property Maintenance Code Ordinance (PMC), for violating section 705.1 of the PMC, which sets forth emergency escape and rescue requirements for basement sleeping areas
On July 9, 2015, Commonwealth Court determined that pass-by trips may be included in the calculation of impact fees pursuant to Section 505-A of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”).
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision found that the sign code of Gilbert, Arizona violated the 1st Amendment because its regulation depended “entirely on the communicative content of the sign” and that it did not survive a 1st Amendment strict scrutiny analysis because it singled out specific subject matters for differential treatment.
On June 5, 2015, Commonwealth Court held that Charleroi Borough could enforce an ordinance establishing a monthly fee to pay for the construction and installation of the Borough’s new storm water collection system through a summary proceeding.
On April 16, 2015, Commonwealth Court considered 2 procedural matters in a Right-to-Know-Law appeal: (1) sufficiency of a certified record and (2) sufficiency of a signed verification from the responding agency, here the Department of Education (Department).
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s (“DRN”) request for the release of information collected by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Bureau of Radiation Protection was denied by the Commonwealth Court this week.
The Commonwealth Court concluded this week that standing to challenge an audit of records created during a treasurer’s time in office does not expire with his or her term. The court reversed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, which held a former treasurer lacked standing to appeal the Township’s annual audit/financial report, and concluded that an officer whose performance and records are reviewed by an auditor has standing under § 909 of the Second Class Township Code.
On March 27, 2015, Commonwealth Court clarified whether a Borough Mayor is permitted to cast a tie-breaking vote to remove an appointed Borough official. The Mayor of the Borough of Braddock cast the tie-breaking vote to remove the sitting Borough Solicitor and appoint a new solicitor.
This week the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that qualified immunity extended to two members of the Pocono Township Board of Supervisors, in a case where a third member filed a suit claiming First Amendment retaliation.
Published By:
