In this case out of Adams County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a question regarding whether a zoning hearing board (“ZHB”) can deny an application for zoning relief based on a provision that was not raised, or incorrectly cited, by the zoning officer in his initial denial. In finding that the ZHB could make such a finding, the court supported its determination by citing to the fact that the issue had been raised at the zoning hearing and the applicant had been given an opportunity to address the issue and supplement the record prior to its close.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Tag: Commonwealth Court (Page 10 of 14)
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not the Borough of Midland (Midland) was immune from suit in a dispute involving utility service facilities. In affirming the trial court, the Commonwealth Court held that Midland was immune. The plaintiffs failed to show that (1) the facilities were in a dangerous condition and (2) expenditures made to correct a dangerous condition were a cognizable injury.
In this case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether Edward Trusello (Trusello) was liable to Deep Meadows Civic Association (the Association), a home owner’s association, for home owner’s fees. In affirming the lower court, the Commonwealth Court held that Trusello neither had notice of any obligation to pay the Association nor received any benefit from the Association’s common area. Therefore, Trusello was not liable to the Association for any fees.
The Commonwealth Court held that the Township of Salem (the Township) was entitled to collect damages from Miller Penn Development, LLC (Developer) for incomplete improvements Developer was required to install under the Township’s subdivision and land development ordinance (SALDO). The court held that the applicable statute of limitation did not apply to the Township’s claim, pursuant to the nullum tempus doctrine, and awarded the township damages for the cost of repairing the improvements.
Court Re-Affirms That Municipalities Have Broad Discretion In Granting Land Development Applications
In this land use appeal out of Allegheny County the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on the amount of discretion a municipality has to grant land development applications based on certifications by professional engineers and conditioned upon subsequent state and federal review. The court was also asked to determine the level of detail post-construction maintenance plans for stormwater facilities must have, and whether municipal approval can be granted despite an ongoing dispute over the scope of a utility easement necessary to construct the project as proposed. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court held that municipalities have broad discretion in choosing to grant or deny a land development application, and that the court will seldom second guess such decisions.
In this case the Commonwealth Court was asked to further elaborate on its holding in City of Reading v. Iezzi, 78 A.3d 1257 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Iezzi held that a municipal recycling fee covering all costs associated with a municipality’s recycling program violated Act 101. Specifically, the issue was whether a partial fee was also in violation of Act 101. While the court remanded the matter for further analysis by the trial court based on its recent decision in Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 107 A.3d 273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), the court did hold that a home rule municipality may rely on powers granted to it under its previous governing statute, in this case the Third Class Cities Code.
In this appeal of the grant of a zoning variance out of Lebanon County the Commonwealth Court weighed in on whether an application for a temporary variance must meet the same requirements as a permanent variance, and whether the de minimis doctrine could be used to grant a use variance. The court held that the same requirements apply to a temporary variance as a permanent variance and that the de minimis doctrine does not apply to use variances, only dimensional variances.
In this petition to open a judgment and intervene in a land use appeal the Commonwealth Court determined that a zoning board’s obligation to notify objectors of its final decision is not satisfied by the objectors being present at the board’s oral decision. Rather, objectors must still be provided with notice of the decision, and failure to do so may permit objectors to make an untimely appeal where extraordinary cause exists.
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 zoning ordinance validity challenge, the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on the difference between a text amendment to a zoning ordinance and a map amendment to a zoning ordinance. In reversing the lower court’s decision that characterized the Ordinance as a text amendment, the court emphasized that the overall effect of the proposed changes was more important to this analysis than the number of proposed changes.
Published By:
