Page 4 of 21

Court Rejects Special Exception Conditions Not Based in Zoning Ordinance/MPC or Supported By Record Evidence

March 23, 2018 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

In this case out of Washington County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on what conditions a zoning hearing board may reasonably impose upon a special exception approval. In ruling that most of the conditions imposed by the Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) were unreasonable, and thus an abuse of discretion, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that conditions placed on a special exception approval must be based upon either the zoning ordinance or the Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”), and must be supported by evidence in the record.

Commonwealth Court Holds That Philadelphia Ordinance Regulating “Adult Cabarets” Was Neither Unconstitutionally Overbroad nor Unconstitutionally Vague

November 15, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

The Commonwealth Court was asked to assess the constitutionality of a provision of the Philadelphia city code regulating “adult cabaret.” The court found that the language of the ordinance was neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague.

Commonwealth Court Holds That Homeowners’ Association Had Authority to Regulate “Tigger” Mailbox

November 13, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

In this “over-litigated case,” the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine if a homeowners’ association had the authority to require the removal of a mailbox that homeowners had not gotten approval to install. The court determined that the association could require the mailbox’s removal, as it was a structure under the terms of the association’s Declaration and Guidelines.

Commonwealth Court Holds That the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment Has Authority to Grant Special Exceptions with Conditions

November 13, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not a zoning hearing board had the authority to place conditions on the grant of a special exception. In holding that it did, the court relied on the language of the Philadelphia city code, which it determined provided the board with adequate discretion to impose the conditions.

Commonwealth Court Approves Much of Land Use Settlement but Holds Trial Court Did Not Have Jurisdiction over Property That Was Not at Issue in Underlying Litigation

October 30, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

This case involved an appeal from a 2015 land use settlement entered into between Lower Mount Bethel Township (the “Township”) and Gravel Hill Enterprises, Inc. (“Gravel Hill”). The settlement revolved around the use of Gravel Hill’s property as a location for stump grinding to create mulch and top soil. There were concerns regarding truck traffic, increased noise, declining property values, and other issues on the part of the Township and many of its residents.

Borough Waived Issues It Did Not Raise in Front of Zoning Hearing Board

October 20, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine if a municipality had a right to appeal the granting of a special exception by its zoning hearing board. The court held that it did not because the municipality failed to make the appropriate objection in front of the zoning hearing board, and thus, the issue was waived.

Commonwealth Court Holds That Records Must Be in Existence at Time of Request to Be Considered “Public Records” and Requesters Cannot Expand Scope of Request After the Fact

October 13, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

The Commonwealth Court was required to decide whether records that were not yet completed at the time of a request made pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (the “RTKL”) were public records. The court held that an agency is required to produce only those records that were in existence at the time of the request, and incomplete records do not count.

Commonwealth Court Holds That Board of Supervisors Did Not Need to Wait for Developer to Obtain Zoning Permit Before Approving Land Development Plan

October 6, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

In this case, the Commonwealth Court had to decide whether a board of supervisors was wrong to consider and approve a land development plan prior to the developer obtaining zoning relief. Because the municipality’s subdivision and land development ordinance (“SALDO”) did not require that a land development applicant obtain zoning relief first, the board of supervisors did not err by considering and approving the land development plans.

Commonwealth Court Found That It Was Necessary to Open Private Road to Public Use After Applying Pennsylvania’s Private Roads Act

September 21, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

The Commonwealth Court was required to construe Pennsylvania’s Private Road Act to determine whether or not a private road should be opened for public use. In holding that it should be opened, the court found that the petitioner’s property was landlocked and that the road would serve a public purpose.

Records Created Before Investigations and Accessed Only When Necessary Can Constitute Investigative Records Under RTKL

September 9, 2017 / nancygimbol / 0 Comments

This case required the Commonwealth Court to decide whether video recordings from cameras on buses can be exempt under the “noncriminal investigation” exemption to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (the “RTKL”). The Commonwealth Court held that a video recording taken prior to the start of an agency investigation can qualify under the noncriminal investigation exemption of the RTKL when it is downloaded or viewed for purposes of that investigation. As a result, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (the “Port Authority”) did not have to disclose video recordings downloaded in relation to a property damage claim filed against it.

Pennsylvania Real Estate, Land Use, Zoning, and Municipal Lawyers