In this appeal out of Bucks County, the Commonwealth Court weighed in on whether a zoning hearing board (“ZHB”) could deny a permit for a permitted by-right use based on the ZHB’s determination that the requested use was not appropriate in the district, and was not the actual use for which the applicant intended to use the property. In affirming the trial court’s reversal of the ZHB’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that it was error for the ZHB to consider the appropriateness or proposed appearance of a permitted by-right use, and that evidence of a prior application for use that was not permitted, was irrelevant to the present application.
Pennsylvania Real Estate, Land Use, Zoning, and Municipal Lawyers
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Page 11 of 21
In this action for negligence out of the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a question of whether an injury caused by an exposed concrete wall in a school gymnasium fell under the real property exception to government immunity provided by the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (the “Act”). In reversing the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County’s grant of summary judgment, the court held that merely because options for remedying a dangerous condition involve personalty it does not mean that the real property exception is inapplicable.
In this appeal from a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court weighed in on whether certain unsuccessful bids for public infrastructure projects were subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). Specifically, the issue presented was whether a statute that ordered the public release of successful bidders, but was silent as to unsuccessful bidders, should be read to exclude unsuccessful bidders from disclosure, or whether the silence meant that the general requirements of the RTKL applied and disclosure was required. In finding unsuccessful proposals were not public records, the Court differentiated standalone statutes and open ended versus closed ended statutes when applying the disclosure requirements of the RTKL.
In this appeal from a final determination of the Office of Open Records, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether an agency’s failure to present evidence in support of their claimed exemption from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), amounted to a default determination requiring disclosure. In finding that it did not, the court held that where the plain language of a request falls within an exemption, additional evidence is unnecessary.
The Commonwealth Court was presented with an appeal from a validity challenge asserting “apartments” were either excluded from the municipality, or the municipality failed to accommodate its fair share of multi-family housing. In determining that the challenge was appropriately dismissed, the court concluded that the economic infeasibility of a particular variation of a use did not render the entire use infeasible, and that zoned and actively used agricultural land could not be considered “undeveloped” when determining whether a municipality was underdeveloped.
Zaloga owned and operated a medical company that provided contracted services to correctional facilities. Upset over the handling of a dispute with a tire company located adjacent to his home, Zolaga launched political attacks against the Borough Council President and Mayor publically opposing their reelections. About a month after launching these attacks, Zaloga was notified that the County would not continue its contractual arrangement with Zolaga’s company after its current contract expired, but that it could compete with other providers for a new contract. Zolaga’s attorney informed him however, that according to conversations with Lackawanna County Prison Board members the Council President and Mayor were attempting to block his contract renewal due to his persistent opposition to their decisions regarding the tire facility. Ultimately however, the County unanimously voted to award the contract to Zolaga’s company. Zolaga then filed a complaint against the Borough of Moosic, the Borough Council, the Borough’s planning commission and zoning board, and various Borough officers alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which the District Court granted for all defendants except the Borough President. His assertion of qualified immunity, the Court concluded, hinged upon fact questions that would need to be settled by a jury. The Council President appealed.
In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was asked to determine the scope of the “personal security” exception to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). The Court concluded that the home addresses of public employees are exempt from RTKL disclosure pursuant to the personal safety exception.
In this appeal from a determination of the Pennsylvania Board of Finance and Revenue (the “Board”), the Commonwealth Court was asked to interpret the Tax Code and decide whether lease renewal periods are to be considered when determining whether a ground lease is subject to the realty transfer tax. In concluding that renewal periods are not to be included, the Court reversed the determination of the Board and ordered a refund of the taxpayers’ money.
In this appeal of the final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on what constitutes a sufficiently specific request under the Right to Know Law (RTKL). In affirming the OOR’s determination and ordering the disclosure of the subject records, the court found that it was sufficient for the requestor to ask for all emails to and from a specific employee over a finite period of time.
In this dispute out of Adams County, a Property Owner attempted to prevent a Township from clear cutting a portion of his property in accordance with a 10 year old right-of-way agreement (“ROW Agreement”) for a sewage easement. In affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County’s grant of declaratory relief to the Township, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that the trial court had merely been interpreting the ROW agreement, and various factual disputes raised by the Property Owner were not properly before the lower court.
Published By:
