This dispute involves a challenge to plans by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to improve State Route 222. The Third Circuit was asked to determine whether an economic injury alone falls within the “zone of interests” protected by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the case, holding that economic injury alone does not support standing under NEPA. The court also affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny these plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint because the allegations they sought to add still failed to establish standing.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Real Estate (Page 4 of 5)
In this case, the Third Circuit was asked to determine whether the design and accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) apply to commercial buildings constructed prior to March 1991—the effective date of the requirements—but converted to residential use after that date. In affirming the lower court’s dismissal, the Third Circuit found that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) interpretation that the FHA requirements only apply to buildings constructed after March 1991 was reasonable.
In this tax assessment appeal out of Alleghany County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on the level of due diligence a party must show to warrant a nunc pro tunc appeal well after the appeal deadline has passed.
In this quiet title action out of Fayette County, the court weighed in on whether a bankruptcy proceeding, by which a property becomes part of a bankruptcy estate, interrupts the continuous possession required to establish adverse possession. Finding that it does, the court dismissed the adverse possession claim for failing to demonstrate that the property had been continuously possessed for 21 years, among other grounds.
In this case out of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on a redemption action to reclaim a property sold at a tax sale. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court ruled on when a property is considered “vacant property” under the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (the Act) such that it cannot be redeemed after the deed is acknowledged by the Sherriff, and what the time limitations are for making the final payment to redeem a property.
In this case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on the procedures a trial court must follow before it can order the sale of a property for unpaid taxes. Specifically, the court found that trial courts must make an independent inquiry into the facts asserted in the municipality’s petition for sale, and cite in its opinion the record evidence it relied upon in concluding that the petition’s factual averments were true.
The Supreme Court, in an appeal from Superior Court, held that judges, not juries, should determine the applicability of the Right to Farm Act’s (“RTFA”) prohibition on nuisance claims. It further determined that the use of recycled biosolids as fertilizer constituted a normal agricultural use under the RTFA.
In this subsurface mineral rights case out of Lycoming County the Superior Court weighed in on the requirements for obtaining alternative service in a quiet title action. It also looked at the impact of failing to include indispensable parties despite 20 years passing between the entering of the judgment and defendants’ motion to open/strike.
“How“
In June 2015, Commonwealth Court continued a recent line of preemption cases, in Gibraltar Rock Inc. v. New Hanover Township, 1907 C.D. 2014, 2015 WL 3533839 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 5, 2015). In Gibraltar Rock, Commonwealth Court considered whether New Hanover Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance was preempted by the Noncoal Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (“Noncoal Act”). Gibraltar sought to develop property for a quarry and associated facilities, and received a Noncoal Surface Mining Permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) authorizing it to operate the quarry. When Gibraltar sought to begin quarrying operations, New Hanover Township sought to enjoin Gibraltar from quarrying, asserting that Gibraltar did not have the requisite approvals from the township—specifically land development approval, including compliance with the township’s stormwater management ordinance.
The Commonwealth Court was tasked with considering whether Maxatawny Township’s Board of Supervisors (Board) erred by granting an applicant’s Final Land Development Plan with conditions that were identical to the conditions set forth in the approved Preliminary Plan, when those conditions were not satisfied after the preliminary approval.
Published By:
