On June 26, 2015, Commonwealth Court again considered what circumstances constitute an “unnecessary hardship” justifying a use variance.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
On June 26, 2015, Commonwealth Court again considered what circumstances constitute an “unnecessary hardship” justifying a use variance.
In June 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 4601, et seq.
A landlord learned an expensive lesson this week about the Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act (“MCTLA”), when the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found liens placed on the property by the City of Philadelphia were his responsibility. Property owner, Raymond Perfetti, discovered liens had been placed on his properties after tenants who were responsible for their own gas bills vacated the property without paying the respective gas bills. Perfetti argued that his due process was violated by the City’s filing of liens against his property for the unpaid bills and claimed to have no notice of his tenants’ delinquencies, or of the four liens placed on the property, only discovering them three years later.
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 May 29, 2015, Commonwealth Court considered whether a mature tree line could constitute a unique physical characteristic for purposes of a dimensional variance analysis.