Solutions for Blight in Pennsylvania

Presented by McNees Attorneys Kandice Kerwin Hull and Dana Chilson

Blight is a problem facing nearly every municipality in Pennsylvania.  Learn about win/win solutions that allow developers to assist communities in tackling blighted properties. This webinar will include a discussion of eminent domain options, redevelopment authorities, land banks, and how public/private partnerships can be beneficial to all concerned.

Date:  June 25, 2019

Time:  12:00 – 12:45 pm (EST)

Space is Limited for this Free Webinar.
All registrations can be done online at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/solutions-for-blight-in-pennsylvania-tickets-61885731890

 

 

We are accustomed to seeing some accommodations for emotional support animals in the housing context.  Recently, a Borough’s zoning hearing board and the Court of Common Pleas were asked to resolve a similar issue in a zoning case.  The facts and issues in the case touched on urban agriculture issues that are becoming increasingly more common in addition to the interpretation of certain terms in the Borough’s zoning ordinance.  Like short-term rentals, emotional support animals and urban agriculture are uses that are not typically addressed in zoning ordinances, thereby leading to cases just like this.

A young boy with autism lived with his mother and grandfather in a two-family residential building on property owned by the grandfather and located in the Borough’s commercial zoning district.  The boy’s family acquired eight ducks as therapeutic pets after he had a positive experience with a friend’s pet duck.  The ducks were kept at the residential property, living outside in a fenced yard but also spending some time inside the house.  The Borough had attempted to deal with the keeping of animals on a residential property in the past. Continue Reading When Are Ducks Pets?

Few things can sour the completion of an otherwise successful construction project more than a lingering mechanics’ lien claim—especially where the developer or project owner did not see it coming.  Pennsylvania’s General Assembly took steps to assist developers and project owners in preventing against this scenario when it passed Act 142 of 2014, which led to the establishment of Pennsylvania’s State Construction Notices Directory (the “Directory”) in December 2016.  This post, Part I of a two-part series, discusses the benefits of registering a project on the Directory. Part II will highlight how underutilized the Directory is in many parts of Pennsylvania.

The Directory is an online database that was developed and is now managed by the Pennsylvania Department of General Services.  It is used for the filing and dissemination of certain project-related information on qualifying construction projects in Pennsylvania.  When the cost of a private construction project meets or exceeds $1.5M, the project is eligible to be “registered” on the Directory.  Project registration is wholly voluntary, and whether to register is a decision for the owner or developer.  A project that is registered is known as a “searchable project” per the statutory terminology.  Registering a project offers important benefits to developers and owners. Continue Reading The State Construction Notices Directory Offers Benefits to Developers and Project Owners in Pennsylvania

In our first post on accessory uses, we introduced the value of accessory uses as a tool for permitting a land use that otherwise might not be permitted as a principal use.  We also discussed the two-part test for determining whether a use is accessory – is it (i) customarily incidental to and (ii) subordinate to the principal use?  In this post, we will conclude our discussion on accessory uses by looking at the “customarily incidental” part of the analysis.

The most important concept to remember when evaluating whether a use is “customarily incidental” to a principal use is not to assume that there must be evidence of a traditional relationship between the principal use and proposed accessory use.  All too often, zoning officers are inclined to take the position that something cannot be an accessory use because they have never seen the proposed accessory use together with a principal use.  This approach would lead to a stagnation of land uses that is not reflective of how uses evolve over time. Continue Reading Accessory Uses Part II: Worth Much More Than a Secondary Thought

Recently, one forward thinking Pennsylvania grocery retailer opened a new Ecommerce hub facility at the site of one of its former, traditional grocery store buildings in a mixed-use neighborhood. Rather than demolishing the existing “brick and mortar” building, it is adaptively reusing the building by converting it to a new “click and mortar” facility.

For many retailers, the traditional retail approach includes a commercial building with a significant retail display and sales area directly accessible by customers selecting and purchasing their goods onsite.  But new approaches are popping up every day.  The new approach referenced above allows customers to place orders online using their electronic devices or onsite using tablets located in the building’s vestibule area.  Orders are processed and fulfilled onsite and either picked up by customers or delivered to customers via a delivery service.

This local retailer is just one example of an emerging business trend whereby “shopping fulfillment centers” are occupying vacant, former retail store buildings located in close proximity to customers. Continue Reading Friendly Neighborhood Fulfillment Centers: Not Your Mama’s Fulfillment Centers

Late last spring we discussed how the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) negatively affected development by increasing the costs incurred by developers to install water and wastewater infrastructure (Part I and Part II). Effective January 1, 2018, the TCJA required that water companies include advances for construction (“Advances”) and Contributions in Aid of Construction (“CIAC”) in taxable income. Of course, water companies do not want to incur the tax directly, so it is passed on to developers thereby making their cost to install water and wastewater infrastructure even higher.

On February 28, 2019 the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) granted Pennsylvania American Water’s (“PAW”) Petition for Reconsideration of its order in Docket Nos. R-2018-3002502/R-2018-3002504. The order requires developers or builders to pay for the TCJA-imposed tax on CIAC and Advances. As a result of the PUC’s grant of reconsideration, there was a cautiously optimistic sigh of relief that the PUC might take a broader and deeper look at the positive impact of new development on the entire base of customers and spread the tax to all customers, not just the developer that installed the improvements. Continue Reading UPDATE! Developers Beware! Water lines may cost more thanks to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act – Part 3 (Potentially good news for developers!)

Pennsylvania’s local governments are on the front lines of providing for the needs and wants, and capturing information about, the likes and dislikes of the communities they serve.  Certainly, the decisions made by local government officials, planners and professional staff are the most likely to directly impact their constituencies’ daily lives because such decisions typically are at a more personal level than those made by state and federal officials.  However, there are state government opportunities and processes that should be considered by local leaders that may support their more pressing priorities for growth and development.

For example, Governor Tom Wolf’s budget address on February 5, 2019 identified many areas of increased focus and related funding that, if approved by the General Assembly later this year, should be primarily available to help Pennsylvania’s local governments meet many of their budgetary requirements.  Although the Governor continues to prioritize education funding, workforce development and new resources for the agricultural industry, many other areas of opportunity exist and are expected to continue to be available after this budget is negotiated.

This is the first in a series of blog posts in which we highlight a sampling of the funding sources planners and local government officials should consider when working with private and public sectors interested in infrastructure improvements, beautification and revitalization, attracting and/or expanding new businesses and industries to the area or, in some cases, trying to retain existing businesses.  This post focuses on the Act 13 suite of programs which is managed by the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (“PA DCED”). Continue Reading Funding Sources: Working with the Commonwealth to Initiate Development

The definition of “accessory” is “a thing which can be added to something else in order to make it more useful, versatile, or attractive.”  This definition is particularly relevant in the zoning context where an accessory use is a useful, versatile and attractive tool for maximizing the use of property.

The typical approach to determining whether land can be used for an intended purpose is to check the zoning ordinance to see what uses are permitted expressly in the zoning district.  For example, if the commercial zoning does not permit standalone convenience stores with fuel pumps, the developer may resign itself to seeking a use variance or requesting that the municipality amend the ordinance.  Neither of those approaches Continue Reading Accessory Uses Part I: Worth Much More Than a Secondary Thought

“Oh, don’t go that way.  You want to avoid the Beltway.” is a common chorus in many American cities.  Harrisburg is no exception and backups on its Beltway encroach onto Front Street and other arterial and connector roads on a daily basis.  In recent years, the issues have been exasperated as we continue to see populations trending from rural to urban locations while, at the same time, continue to experience aging and weakening transportation infrastructure.  But plans to bring relief to Harrisburg’s Beltway have been in the works for 15 years.  In 2003, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) prepared an I-83 Master Plan, the purpose of which was to identify, plan, and program future transportation improvement projects for the I-83 Capital Beltway.  The Master Plan proposed numerous improvements to the Beltway to address: (1) worsening road conditions; (2) high-traffic volumes and congestion; and, (3) safety. Continue Reading The I-83 Capital Beltway Project: PennDOT’s Right-of-Way Acquisition and Power of Eminent Domain

In an earlier blog post (available here), we discussed how the Commonwealth Court reversed the decision by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) to no longer issue certificates of public convenience to neutral host DAS (i.e. “distributed antenna system”) network operators.  The PUC’s decision was based on its new interpretation of the statutory language which excludes any person or corporation that “furnishes mobile domestic cellular radio telecommunications services” from the general definition of a public utility.  The Commonwealth Court determined that interpretation was “not supported by the plain language of the Code or the principles of statutory construction, the precedent of this Court, the determination of public utility commissions in other jurisdictions, or the 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Order.”

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal from the Commonwealth Court’s decision that was filed by the PUC.  We will continue to follow this issue through the appellate process and provide an update when a decision is issued.  In the meantime, please contact any member of the McNees Wallace & Nurick Land Use Group with questions regarding this post or for assistance with any land use issues