In this case out of Pike County, the Commonwealth Court determined that a current Board of Auditors could not rescind a past Board of Auditor’s approval for supervisor-employees to participate in a Township pension plan, despite not being presented with the specific pension plan adopted by the municipality. Further, the court held that such pension plans were not compensation of the elected office and therefore supervisor-employees who adopted the plan did not have to be reelected to participate in it.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Tag: Commonwealth Court (Page 12 of 14)
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.
In this case out of Susquehanna County, the Commonwealth Court determined that where a subdivision and land development ordinance (SALDO) does not impose a mandate upon a municipality to enforce it, the municipality cannot be compelled to enforce the SALDO by a writ of mandamus. The court also determined that where a lease does not convey a discrete portion of land to a lessee, it does not constitute subdivision that triggers approval under the SALDO.
In this case the Supreme Court held that businesses that obtain all of their income from leasing property can be compelled to pay business privilege tax (BPT), despite a provision in the Local Tax Enabling Act (“LTEA”) prohibiting municipalities from levying, assessing, or collecting “any tax” on leases or lease transactions.
In this exclusionary zoning case out of Beaver County, the Commonwealth Court determined that requiring group living facilities to have 24-hour onsite supervision was de jure exclusionary of “partial” Community Residential Rehabilitation Services (CRRS) and therefore unconstitutional.
In this case out of Berks County the Commonwealth Court weighed in on whether erecting a fence around a high school’s athletic fields constituted a new “stadium use” or was an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use. In concluding that the fence did not create a new stadium use or expand the preexisting nonconforming use the court reversed the ZHB’s decision and ordered the requested permits be issued.
On November 26, 2008 Gaughen submitted a land development plan to the Borough Manager of Mechanicsburg seeking approval for a 5-unit apartment complex under the Borough’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO). On December 10, the Borough Engineer issued a memo stating that the plan did not comply with certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, SALDO, and Stormwater Ordinance. Thereafter Gaughen never submitted a revised plan to the Borough and the Borough never notified Gaughen that his application was incomplete or not filed. The 90-day period in which the Borough had to act on Gaughen’s plans, pursuant to the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), expired on February 24, 2009. On February 25th the Borough received an extension from Gaughen’s engineer. On June 2nd the Borough officially denied Gaughen’s plan. Six months later Gaughen instituted a mandamus action seeking a deemed approval based on the Borough’s failure to act on the plan or receive an extension by February 24th.
In a highly publicized case involving state employees sending and receiving pornographic emails, the Commonwealth Court ruled that such communications were not required to be disclosed under the State’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
In this case out of Northampton County the Commonwealth Court weighed in on what constitutes a “substantial amendment” to a proposed ordinance, such that it must be re-advertised prior to being adopted. In finding that the municipality should have re-advertised a change to the number of hours digital billboards could be illuminated, the court appeared to establish different standards for such appeals brought by applicants and those brought by adjacent landowners.
In this dispute between the Borough of West Chester and a former industrial discharger of wastewater, the Commonwealth Court held that the industrial discharger could not be required to make perpetual payments for operational and maintenance costs of waste water facilities when it no longer discharged any wastewater.
Published By:
