In this land use appeal from Cumberland County, the Commonwealth Court refused to strike down a Township’s adoption of two zoning ordinances, which rezoned a property from residential to industrial, on procedural grounds relating to notice and public comment.
Continue readingTag: notice
The misidentification of property being condemned by PennDOT for road construction meant that condemnees could challenge the adequacy of PennDOT’s Declaration of Taking after the expiration of the 30-day time limit for filing preliminary objections imposed by the Eminent Domain Code. In concluding that PennDOT had not provided adequate notice to the property owners, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the burden of accurately identifying the property rested with the condemnor and not the condemnee.
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 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.
In this subsurface mineral rights case out of Lycoming County the Superior Court weighed in on the requirements for obtaining alternative service in a quiet title action. It also looked at the impact of failing to include indispensable parties despite 20 years passing between the entering of the judgment and defendants’ motion to open/strike.
Published By:
