**Updated 2/26/2020**

On December 7, 2019, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) reissued the general permit for stormwater associated with construction activities (PAG-02).  This general permit is routinely utilized in most real estate developments, solar farm installations, construction projects and other earth disturbance projects in the Commonwealth.  With the permit package, PADEP made substantial changes to the terms and conditions of the permit as well as the eligibility requirements to qualify for coverage under the general permit.  Importantly, the new permit automatically replaces any existing PAG-02 permit, however PADEP is requiring that permittees covered under a PAG-02 issued prior to December 7, 2019 certify whether they “remain eligible for and are able to comply with the terms and conditions of the reissued PAG-02 General Permit” in order to maintain coverage.  The acknowledgment is to be made electronically on or before March 9, 2020, and the form can be found here.

Permittees who are unable to certify that they remain eligible and able to comply with the new PAG-02 must nevertheless certify to that effect and submit an application for an individual NPDES permit on or before March 9, in which case general permit coverage under the new PAG-02 will continue until the individual permit is issued.  Failure to provide timely acknowledgement will result in termination of the permit coverage as of March 9, 2020.  Therefore it is critical that the acknowledgment be completed for all outstanding permits, or earthmoving activities will have to cease until a new permit is obtained.

The acknowledgment has raised many questions regarding Continue Reading **Important Notice – General Permit for Stormwater (PAG-02)**

Sometimes, the storm hits years after a development is complete. Indeed, stormwater runoff can give rise to liability against a developer long after stormwater management facilities are constructed according to an approved final plan. Accordingly, it is important for developers to understand (1) how trespass is applied in the stormwater context and (2) that they might never be fully insulated from such claims.

Pennsylvania follows the “common-enemy rule” with respect to stormwater runoff. Under the Rule, an “upper” landowner may discharge its stormwater on the land of a “lower” landowner. However, water artificially diverted from its natural channel across a “lower” landowner’s property can be considered a trespass. In that case, Continue Reading Water Flows Downhill – Liability Flows Up

When I first read Lancaster County’s Places2040 Comprehensive Plan (you can read my summary of the Plan adopted in October 2018 HERE), one “Catalytic Tool” caught my eye in particular: simplify zoning.  Make no mistake, complicated zoning ordinances are not unique to Lancaster County.  In Pennsylvania, where land use is controlled at the municipal level, there is often no consistency in how zoning is regulated from one township, borough, or city to the next.  To add further complication, municipal boundaries don’t always align with places, communities and corridors.  As a result, two comparable properties located in the same neighborhood can be governed by vastly different zoning regulations.  With a system that is so fractured, how can we meaningfully work towards simplifying zoning in Lancaster County and across the Commonwealth?

To answer this question, the Lancaster County Planning Commission (“LCPC”) Continue Reading Simplified Zoning: Paradox or New Paradigm?

Happy Holidays from the McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC Land Use Blog!  For your reading enjoyment as you (hopefully) relax your way into 2020, we present our Top 10 most viewed posts of 2019.

In chronological order:

Thank you for following our blog throughout 2019.  We hope you found these posts and others insightful and, perhaps, entertaining.  We wish you the best in 2020!  As always, please feel free to contact any member of the McNees Wallace & Nurick Land Use Group for assistance with any land use or development issues or if you have any questions regarding this post.

Did you know that under certain circumstances a private individual can acquire government-owned land without the government’s consent? Although the Commonwealth’s immunity from adverse possession claims has never been in question, whether political subdivisions of the Commonwealth are subject to adverse possession claims has been less clear. On September 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed this matter in the case of City of Philadelphia v. Galdo, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 5452. In Galdo, the Supreme Court held that political subdivisions in Pennsylvania may be subject to claims of adverse possession, except where the property is devoted to a public use. The facts of Galdo provide great insight into this matter.

In 1974, the City of Philadelphia condemned 1101-1119 N. Front Street in Philadelphia for transit purposes related to the construction of Route I-95 (the “Parcel”). The City, however, never physically occupied the Parcel or used it for public transit purposes as originally intended. Instead, the Parcel remained vacant and unmaintained, with the City viewing it as “surplus property” that was not actively being used. Continue Reading Use It or Lose It: Political Subdivisions are Subject to Claims of Adverse Possession

Yesterday morning on the McNees Minute on ABC 27, I briefly discussed the role local public officials – such as your municipality’s council members, commissioners or supervisors – have in the development and redevelopment processes for our communities.  They play a major role in ensuring our land is developed in a smart, safe and efficient manner that provides for all the needs of a community.  I stressed the importance of electing public officials who are willing to trust municipal staff and other consultants.  In addition, I touched on why it is important to elect public officials who are willing and able to collaborate with developers and property owners.  Finally, I offered that it is equally important for developers and property owners to engage land use professionals who also are collaborative and able to work with elected public officials and municipal staff.  Having forward thinking, collaborative people in each of those roles is vitally important to the future development and redevelopment of our communities.

There are many posts on this blog that discuss or analyze the situation where a municipal ordinance has become antiquated.  We’ve discussed situations where ordinances just haven’t considered Continue Reading Collaboration: A Better Way to Develop

In baseball, if the base runner and the ball arrive at first base at the same time the tie is resolved in favor of the base runner and they are safe.  Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), if there is any ambiguity when interpreting a zoning ordinance provision, the ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the property owner and against the extension of any restriction in the ordinance provision.  This rule was applied by the Commonwealth Court recently in the case of Alleman v. North Newton Township Board of Supervisors.

In the Alleman case, the property owner owned approximately 112 acres of split-zoned land in North Newton Township.  Approximately forty acres of the property were in the Township’s Agricultural District and approximately seventy-two acres were in the Township’s Rural Residential District.  The property owner had a hog feeding operation on a portion of the forty acres Continue Reading A Tie Goes to the Runner (or the Property Owner): Interpreting Ambiguity in Zoning Ordinances

Where do you spend your free time or work on your hobby?

There is a concept in community planning and place making involving three separate but important social environments (or places) where people spend their time.  The first two places are one’s home and one’s workplace.  “Third places” generally include public or community places where people socialize or recreate, including places of worship, health clubs, bars and pubs, restaurants, stores, parks, community centers, etc.  Now developers are creating new third places by combining the “man cave” and “she shed” concepts with mini-storage.  These third places are known as luxury garage units or “car condos.”

The concept is simple.  Rather than renting or leasing unconditioned dead storage space for vehicles, household items or recreational equipment in traditional mini-storage units, luxury garage units are made available for purchase as condominium units and are fully conditioned.  Continue Reading Man Caves and She Sheds Meet Mini-Storage…It’s a Thing

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, in consultation with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is currently studying the viability of building a hyperloop tube that would transverse Pennsylvania from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg to Philadelphia and then northeast toward Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.  Pennsylvania House of Representatives Resolution 1057 authorized the Commonwealth to conduct a study for a hyperloop system that would facilitate the transportation of passengers and freight at speeds approaching 700 miles per hour in pods that move through low-pressure tubes.

House Resolution 1057 found that the concept of the hyperloop, first described by Elon Musk in 2012-2013, may no longer be a hypothetical notion, given the recent work of states and firms to study and develop the necessary technologies.  In 2018, transportation agencies in Ohio and Illinois announced a study involving a hyperloop that would connect Columbus, Ohio to Chicago, Illinois.  House Resolution 1057 explains that Elon Musk desires to build a hyperloop connecting New York City to Washington, D.C. with a projected travel time of 29 minutes with planned stops in Philadelphia and Baltimore. Continue Reading A Hyperloop in Pennsylvania: More Than Just a Futuristic Notion?

In a series of posts last year (available HERE and HERE), I discussed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s revival of the long-dormant Environmental Rights Amendment (“ERA”) to the Pennsylvania Constitution.  This summer, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court authored another chapter in the ERA saga.  Stick with me, because it is about to get technical…

As you may recall, in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund (“PEDF”) v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the ERA created a public trust, the corpus of which was all of Pennsylvania’s public natural resources.  In this analogy, the Commonwealth is the trustee and Pennsylvania’s citizens are the named beneficiaries of the trust.  When state park land is leased by Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for oil and natural gas extraction, any royalties – monthly payments based on the gross production of oil and gas at each well – are proceeds received in exchange for trust assets.  As a result, royalties must be returned to the trust as part of its corpus.  In other words, they are earmarked for the conservation and maintenance of Pennsylvania’s natural resources. Continue Reading PEDF v. Commonwealth Redux: The Commonwealth Court Weighs In