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.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Tag: Commonwealth Court (Page 9 of 14)
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.
The Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on whether a purchaser of real estate at an upset sale for unpaid taxes was responsible for paying taxes that accrue between the date of purchase at upset sale and the date the deed was conveyed. In affirming the lower court’s determination, the court held that the purchaser was responsible for such taxes.
If chickens are raised on the farm, is a plant for processing those chickens considered part of that agricultural use? That was the question presented to the Commonwealth Court in this case. After analyzing the specific language of the municipal zoning ordinance, the court concluded such a facility was part of an agricultural use and therefore was permitted in a district that only allowed agriculture uses.
In this follow up case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) in which the Court struck down several provisions of Act 13, the State’s oil and gas law, that provided uniform statewide regulation of land uses associated with oil and gas operations, the Court dealt another blow to Act 13 by finding additional provisions either unconstitutional or not severable. The Court struck down additional sections related to allowing gas companies to employ eminent domain, exempting private water sources from being notified following spills, preventing doctors from disclosing or using information about patients’ chemical exposures, and allowing requests for state review of local ordinances.
In this case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to apply the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) and determine whether financial information contained in contracts between state agencies and outside vendors is excluded from disclosure through RTKL requests. In reversing the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination, the Court concluded that such information was specifically excluded under § 708(b)(26) and could be redacted by the responding state agency.
This case out of Erie County involved a substantive validity challenge of an ordinance down-zoning a property based on an allegation of illegal spot zoning. In affirming the dismissal of the challenge, the Commonwealth Court concluded that Objectors had failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the parcel was characteristically similar to surrounding properties.
In this case the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether “short-term rentals” of residential dwelling units were encompassed within the definition of a “single-family dwelling,” or constituted a separate commercial use. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court concluded that such rentals must be permitted, unless expressly prohibited by, or encompassed within another defined use in, the applicable zoning ordinance.
Published By:
