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

In our first two posts (Part 1 and Part 2), we discussed current approaches used by many communities to regulate parking, factors contributing to those approaches, and how those approaches are not sustainable because they consume large amounts of space and money.  Great anecdotal evidence of what we described is provided annually in a post from “Strong Towns” titled “The Best of #BlackFridayParking.”  It is worth a look.

In this, our third and final post, we discuss a few solutions communities, especially those seeking to encourage and support mixed use reuse, infill and redevelopment projects, may wish to consider when “right-sizing” their parking regulations.  In order to gauge impacts and determine the success of the parking solutions, we suggest limiting the following solutions by area (e.g., parcels, blocks or neighborhoods) or zoning district: Continue Reading Reclaiming “Paradise”: One Parking Space at a Time (Part 3 of 3)

This is the second post in a two-post series on small cell facilities and the implications of the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (the “FCC Order”) that was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in September.  The first post described small cell facilities, the reasons for the FCC Order, and included a discussion regarding the review standard adopted by the FCC.  This post discusses the fee standards and “shot clocks” that were adopted by the FCC in response to concerns raised by the wireless industry regarding excessive and unreasonable fees charged by municipalities, unequal treatment of small cell facilities compared to other utility facility installations, and lengthy review time periods for applications.

The FCC recognized that the fees charged by municipalities with respect to the deployment of small cell facilities can materially limit or inhibit the ability of the wireless service providers to compete.  Such fees are a critical issue for the industry since it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of small cell facilities will be deployed in the near future.  Excessive or unreasonable fees could serve to effectively prohibit the deployment of small cell facilities by rendering the proposed deployment economically infeasible.

The FCC Order addresses three types of fees charged by municipalities: (1) fees for access to the public rights-of-way; Continue Reading Small Cell Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way – The FCC Weighs In (Part II)

In an earlier blog post, we looked at distributed antenna system (DAS) networks, a technology that wireless service providers are deploying to address the increasing demand for additional network capacity.  Another technology that is being deployed is the small cell facility.  This is the first post in a two-post series on small cell facilities and the Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (the “FCC Order”) that was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in September.  This post describes small cell facilities, provides the reasons the FCC adopted the FCC Order and discusses the review standard adopted by the FCC.  The next post will review the fee standards and “shot clocks” that were adopted by the FCC and some typical ordinance requirements.

Small cell facilities typically consist of a single antenna, attached either to an existing structure (e.g., a light pole, utility pole, traffic signal pole, etc.) or to a new structure, together with a small equipment cabinet.  Small cell facilities provide a much smaller coverage footprint than a traditional wireless antenna facility and are intended to provide additional network capacity in an area where wireless subscribers are more concentrated (e.g., a shopping center, an urban area, etc.).  Small cell facilities are often deployed within public rights-of way which has led to some tension between wireless service providers and municipalities. Continue Reading Small Cell Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way: The FCC Weighs In (Part I)

Earlier this year, Claudia Shank blogged about the revival of the Environmental Rights Amendment (the “ERA”) (available HERE) after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (2017).  The PEDF decision breathed new life into the 1972 amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, but also left many unanswered questions about the ERA.  The most relevant unanswered question for developers and municipalities was the meaning of the revived ERA in the land use context.  Last week, the Commonwealth Court provided some insight.

In Frederick v. Allegheny Twp. Zoning Hearing Board, 2018 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 593 (Commw. Ct. Oct. 26, 2018), the Court reviewed a substantive validity challenge to a zoning ordinance that permitted oil and gas wells by right in all zoning districts of a township.  In a 5 to 2 decision, an en banc panel rejected the challenge (and the accompanying land use appeal to a zoning permit) that was filed by objectors to an unconventional gas well project in a residential zoning district.  The Court dismissed the objectors’ argument that Continue Reading The Commonwealth Court Begins to Answer What the Environmental Rights Amendment Means to Land Use

Every time my daughter gets to choose the show we watch on television she picks some variation of a show where prospective buyers are searching for a tiny house.  The programming on HGTV includes shows like Tiny House Living, Tiny House Hunters, and Tiny House Builders.  This programming, which seems to run constantly, is reflective of the wave of new consumer interest in bucking the American tradition of “bigger is better.”

The tiny house phenomenon makes sense for the consumer.  The initial investment is much smaller than what is needed for a typical single-family detached home, which is particularly appealing to new college graduates with high student debt and retirees on a fixed income.  Moreover, the ongoing costs of maintaining the tiny home are comparatively lower as well.  The tiny house options also create a much smaller carbon footprint, which is appealing to environmentally-conscious consumers.  Therefore, the interest in tiny houses likely will continue to grow at a rapid pace.

But like most new housing trends, the consumer interest is ahead of the land use regulations and municipalities are playing catch up. Continue Reading Tiny Houses – Growing Fast

Wireless service providers, such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T, are continually upgrading their networks given the ubiquitous nature of smart phones and the incredible growth of mobile data traffic.  One technology that is being deployed to address this exponential growth and the resulting demand for additional network capacity is distributed antenna system (DAS) networks.  A DAS network is a network of antenna nodes that are deployed to provide wireless coverage to indoor (e.g., arenas, airports, etc.) or outdoor areas.  Some DAS networks are installed by companies that are not wireless service providers and are referred to as neutral host DAS networks since they provide the infrastructure (e.g., antenna nodes, fiber lines, etc.) that carries the wireless traffic of the wireless service providers.

In Pennsylvania, the Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) had recognized neutral host DAS network operators as public utilities and issued certificates of public convenience to the operators since 2005.  Continue Reading Are Distributed Antenna Networks Public Utilities? The Commonwealth Court Weighs In

In all facets of life, simple mistakes or a lack of understanding can lead to unwanted results. In the world of land use, such unwanted consequences can occur when required notice procedures for zoning hearings are not strictly followed. This blog post, the first of a four-post series reviewing the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code’s (the “MPC”) zoning hearing requirements, reviews both the public notice and written notice requirements that zoning hearing boards (the “Board”) must follow prior to the first hearing.  The three other posts, in which we discuss hearing timing requirements and the rules of the hearing, itself, are available here: Post 2, Post 3, and Post 4 to come.

Under Section 908(1) of the MPC, a Board must give “public notice” of the hearing. “Public notice” is defined in the MPC as “notice published once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality.” The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court interpreted “successive weeks” to be Continue Reading An Important Notice – Regarding Notice

This post, which is the second in a two-part series exploring the scope of Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment (the “ERA”), will delve deeper into the text of the ERA as analyzed and explained by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund (“PEDF”) v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017).

In PEDF, the Court ruled that the ERA grants citizens of the Commonwealth two distinct rights: 1) the right to clean air and pure water, and to the preservation of natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment; and 2) the right of common ownership by the people, including future generations, of Pennsylvania’s public natural resources. The Court noted that the first right, which comes directly from the text of the ERA itself, “places a limitation on the state’s power to act contrary to [the] right, and while the subject of the right may be amenable to regulation, any laws that unreasonably impair the right are unconstitutional.” Despite this declaration by the Court, the scope and meaning of the first right remains undefined. It remains to be seen how the courts will define “clean air” or “pure water” and even more intangibly, who will determine which “scenic” or “esthetic” values are worthy of preservation? Continue Reading The PA Supreme Court’s Revival of the Environmental Rights Amendment – Part 2

Although the Environmental Rights Amendment (the “ERA”) to the Pennsylvania Constitution was ratified in 1971, for many years it was rarely a topic of discussion among land use practitioners. Recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court jurisprudence, however, has revived this long-dormant amendment, and is reason to reconsider the ERA’s potential impact on development projects. This two-part post will explore the history of the ERA, the current legal standard for evaluating ERA violations as articulated by the Supreme Court, and potential future implications of the Court’s decision.

The ERA, found in Article I, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, provides as follows:

The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.  Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come.  As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of the people. Continue Reading The PA Supreme Court’s Revival of the Environmental Rights Amendment – Part 1