In this quiet title action out of the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, the Superior Court was asked whether a temporary period of ownership by a political subdivision restarted, or merely tolled, the 21-year period necessary to assert a claim of adverse possession. In concluding that such ownership merely tolled, rather than restarted, the 21-year period, the Court reversed the order ejecting the adverse possessors from the subject property.
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 9 of 21
In this breach of contract action out of Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether a municipality could be held vicariously liable for the actions of members of a Township Board of Supervisors. In reversing the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that, similar to a private corporation, a political subdivision can only carry out its duties through its agents, servants, and employees; including members of its governing body. As agents of the municipality, the municipality could be held vicariously liable for their actions.
In this mandamus action out of Washington County, a billboard company (“All State”) sought to compel a Borough to issue billboard permits after Borough Council failed to act on the applications for nearly 6 months. The Court of Common Pleas of Washington County granted summary judgment, based in part on the fact that the proposed billboards would only have been permitted if the zoning ordinance were found to be exclusionary. The Commonwealth Court reversed, stating the underlying merits of the applications was irrelevant where a deemed approval was asserted, and remanding the matter to determine whether the applications had been deemed approved.
In this appeal of a zoning violation notice, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether short-term rentals of entire properties, made common by services such as AirBnB, are encompassed by existing definitions for more traditional uses, such as tourist homes, hotels, or motels. In strictly applying the terms of the applicable ordinance, the Court concluded that “shoe-horning” such uses into existing definitions was improper, and the regulation of such uses must be done by amending the applicable zoning ordinance.
In this appeal out of Lehigh County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a challenge to the City of Allentown’s residential rental unit licensing ordinance. Objecting landlords (“Challengers”) asserted the fee constituted an unlawful special tax and sought an injunction against its enforcement. In affirming the trial court’s finding in favor of the City, the Commonwealth Court held that certain indirect costs were to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a municipal fee, and Challengers’ failure to include any indirect costs meant they had not met their burden and the case was properly dismissed.
In this appeal of a special exception denial by the City of Scranton’s Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”), the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine what type of testimony is required to support such a denial based on general detrimental effects to health, safety, and welfare. In reversing the ZHB’s decision, the Court concluded that lay testimony based solely on personal opinions, bald assertions, and speculation were insufficient grounds for denial.
In this interlocutory appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to interpret the Storm Water Management Act (the “Act”). Precisely, the court was asked to determine whether a county watershed storm water plan must be in place for a defendant to be liable for violations of Sections 13 and 15 of the Act. In finding that such a plan was a prerequisite to liability, the court affirmed the trial court’s determination and limited liability to flooding instances after such a plan was in place.
In this appeal out of Fayette County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine which of two conflicting statutes of limitations (“SOL”) applied to petitions for the appointment of a board of viewers following a municipal authority’s declaration of taking and payment of just compensation. In finding that the 1 year SOL within the Urban Redevelopment Law (“URL”) was applicable, the court found that this statute had not been expressly or impliedly repealed by Act 34 which had repealed and replaced the Eminent Domain Code.
Presented with a challenge to the City of Philadelphia’s Windows and Doors Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), the Commonwealth Court ruled that the Ordinance was an improper exercise of the City’s police power because it was purely concerned with aesthetics, rather than the safety risks posed by blight.
In this Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) appeal from the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court was asked to evaluate when a request is too vague such that an agency is not required to respond. In finding that the request at issue was too vague, the court reasoned that an overly broad request that does not identify a specific transaction or activity for which the record is being sought, provides no context to guide the agency’s record search and does not require production.
Published By:
