In this case a property owner sought a variance to allow more retail space on the ground floor of his building than 1,500 square feet permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Continue readingPennsylvania 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 3 of 21
In this case the Third Circuit ruled that a property owner may be liable for the costs of an environmental cleanup that took place on the property before the current property owner acquired it.
Continue readingThe Commonwealth Court reversed a trial court’s dismissal of claims brought by one township supervisor (“Plaintiff”) against the two other township supervisors (“Defendants”) for violations of the Sunshine Act and Second Class Township Code.
Continue readingThe Commonwealth Court determined that a reporter was entitled to records identifying the names, job titles, and departments of the panel that reviewed and scored applications for marijuana grower/processor and dispensary licenses under the Right-to-Know Law.
Continue readingThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a City of Philadelphia ordinance requiring the owners of vacant buildings to secure all window openings and entryways with working windows and doors.
Continue readingThis was an appeal of the imposition of a $1.1 million civil penalty against EQT by DEP for violations of the Clean Streams Law stemming from the release of fracking waste water through the damaged liner of an impoundment basin.
Continue readingIn this variance case out of Philadelphia, an objecting neighbor appealed the grant of a use variance by the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) to redevelop a partially vacant and underutilized former industrial building into a mixed use multi-family residential building. Following an affirmance by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Objector appealed to Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court condensed the issues raised on appeal down to whether the applicant, Hightop Brown, LLC, had standing, and whether there was sufficient evidence to grant the requested variance. The Commonwealth Court affirmed ZBA’s decision.
In a property dispute between the City of Philadelphia and Francis Galdo, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the City of Philadelphia is not immune from claims of adverse possession where it is simply holding property for possible future sale. This dispute centers upon a small, rectangular piece of undeveloped land that was condemned by the City in 1974 on behalf of the Commonwealth in relation to the construction of Interstate 95. Galdo purchased a property across the street from the property in 1989 and began using it for storage, parties, and parking. Galdo made a variety of improvements to the property over the years: pouring concrete slabs, installing and (later) removing a fence, installing storage trailers, building a fire pit/brick barbeque and pavilion, and creating a volleyball court, horseshoe pits, and a treehouse. In 2014 the City filed an ejectment action against Galdo, who responded with a counterclaim to quiet title, claiming ownership by adverse possession. The trial court ruled in favor of the City, concluding Galdo could not claim title to the Property because the City had condemned the property at the behest of the Commonwealth, and because claims of adverse possession cannot lie against the Commonwealth or its agents, and the Property was devoted to public use.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was presented with an appeal from a determination by the Commonwealth Court pursuant to a declaratory judgment action filed by EQT Production Company (“EQT”). EQT requested a determination regarding the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) interpretation of the Clean Streams Law to allow the imposition of ongoing penalties against polluters, following a single release of pollutants into the waters of the Commonwealth, for each day that those contaminants remain in the subsurface soil and passively enter groundwater and surface water. DEP offered two theories of liability to support its position. Under the first (the soil-to-water migration theory) DEP argued industrial waste pollutants could perch above an aquifer and continually pollute new groundwater as water flows through the polluted soil and over time move into uncontaminated areas. The second theory (the water-to-water theory) asserted new infractions occurred as contaminants spread from discrete bodies of water into new regions of water. EQT conversely, argued that a violation only occurred upon the actual discharge of pollutants into a body of water, and not the continued presence of those pollutants in the water.
In this case out of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the reversal of a Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) decision to deny special exception approval to a developer to construct a Dunkin Donuts near the intersection of Broad Street and Oregon Avenue in South Philadelphia. Monroe Land Investments (“Monroe”) filed a special exception application to redevelop a former 7-11 and Napa auto parts store into a Dunkin Donuts coffee shop.
Published By:
