The municipal regulation of public utility facilities continues to be a topic of litigation.  In April 2018, we discussed how municipalities cannot use zoning ordinances to regulate non-building facilities of public utilities.  Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court weighed in on whether a municipality can regulate when and how a public utility installs its improvements within the municipality’s street rights-of-way.  Again, the litigation resulted in a favorable decision for the public utility.

In PPL Electric Utilities Corp. v. City of Lancaster, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 4611 (Pa. 2019), the City of Lancaster adopted an ordinance to regulate the installation of public utilities in City streets.  This effort was not surprising as many municipalities look at their street rights-of-way as a critical asset that must be protected.  Continue Reading You Can’t Touch This? Supreme Court Hammers Away at Municipal Regulation of Public Utilities

Real estate developers, construction businesses, engineers, and others involved in development projects are subject to numerous permitting and approval requirements under local, state, and federal regulatory programs.  For example, development projects in Pennsylvania involving earthmoving of more than one acre (i.e. most projects) must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for construction-related stormwater discharges, also known as PAG-02.  The current PAG-02 expires on December 7, 2019.  Recently, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) announced the availability of supporting documents, such as an updated Fact Sheet, and a comment period on the draft revised PAG-02.  The comment period is open until only September 16, 2019.

Anyone engaged in construction, real estate development, or similar operations should review the draft revised PAG-02 permit and supporting documents, and should consider submitting comments to PADEP.   PADEP anticipates the revised PAG-02 having an effective date of December 8, 2019. Continue Reading Attention Developers! Construction Stormwater Permitting Changes Imminent

We mentioned in a prior post that failing to follow procedural requirements for land use hearings can lead to unwanted results for all – or at least most – involved. In a recent example, the Commonwealth Court ruled that Lewis Township’s Zoning Ordinance was void from inception after finding that the Board of Supervisors failed to comply with the Municipalities Planning Code (the “MPC”) requirements for adopting zoning ordinances.

In Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, the Township formed a Zoning Ordinance Committee (“ZOC”) to create a proposed zoning ordinance to present to the Board for adoption. The Board published notice of a public hearing scheduled on the Ordinance. The Board held the hearing in accordance with the public notice and subsequently adopted the Ordinance at a later regularly scheduled meeting. Less than one month after the Ordinance became effective Continue Reading No Notice: Commonwealth Court Scraps Township Zoning Ordinance

In an earlier blog post we discussed a zoning case from Lebanon County, Pennsylvania that involved the keeping of ducks as emotional support animals on a residential property.  In that case, the zoning hearing board determined that the ducks were permitted on the property as pets and that the keeping of ducks as pets was not an agricultural operation as alleged in the enforcement notice.  Last month, a zoning hearing board in a York County, Pennsylvania municipality was asked to determine whether the keeping of pot-bellied pigs as emotional support animals on a residential property is permitted.

According to an article published in the York Daily Record, a family acquired two pot-bellied pigs as emotional support animals for their son.  The family also has two dogs and three cats, and all the animals live in the house with the family. Continue Reading Are Pot Bellied Pigs Pets Too?

Did you know the right to eminent domain goes as far back as the Magna Carta? Eminent domain is hardly new news, and as such recent game changing cases regarding the subject are few and far between.  The last major eminent domain case decided by the United States Supreme Court was Kelo v. the City of New London (2006), which held that an entity clothed with the power of eminent domain was permitted to acquire property merely to resell it to a private entity.  Kelo had an enormous impact on many states, and here in Pennsylvania the case spurred the adoption of the Property Rights Protection Act, which aimed at preventing a repeat of the events that lead to Kelo.  The recent decision of Knick v. Township of Scott is likely to have just as great of an impact on litigants. Continue Reading How The Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case Of Knick v. Township Of Scott Could Be Buying Everyone More Trips To The Federal Courthouse

In a world where technology and community needs frequently out-pace zoning updates, permitting zoning modifications by conditional use is an opportunity for municipalities and developers to collaborate to help ensure development projects are well designed, innovative, publicly supported and, therefore, approved.  Most people involved in zoning and development know that denied variances – (i.e., modifications of the strict application of zoning ordinance provisions) can sink otherwise well designed, innovative and publicly supported projects.  Regardless of the use, district or community, the rigid “hardship” criteria for variances, set forth in Section 910.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”), are extremely inflexible.  That inflexibility often stymies creativity and constrains innovation.  Indeed, the antiquated criteria is inconsistent with and contrary to other provisions of the MPC and, at times, the desires of many municipalities that wish to accommodate newer development innovations and trends.

Occurring more often are scenarios where variances are necessary to accommodate the preferences of the municipality and to permit innovative and sustainable mixed-use developments with design enhancements.  In such instances, zoning hearing boards, municipal elected and appointed officials, and the public all may agree Continue Reading Requesting a Variance from Variances! Consider a Conditional Use

If you have ever watched a live trial or law-related television show, you probably know a few general things about court proceedings: a judge presides over a case and the rules of evidence (Objection, your honor!) govern what parties can and cannot say and do.  While there are similarities in how court proceedings and land use hearings operate, key distinctions exist.  First, there is no separate judge and jury.  The governing body or the zoning hearing board (collectively, the “Board”) does both.  In addition, land use hearings, while structured, are designed to give the Board freedom in its decision process.  This includes the Board’s power to appoint a hearing officer, relaxed rules of evidence (including the hearsay rule), and the opportunity for parties to present arguments and evidence and to conduct cross-examination.  Continue Reading He Said, She Said: The Rules Surrounding Hearsay and Cross-Examination in Land Use Hearings

In January of this year, Governor Wolf put forth a series of Legislative Proposals meant to address critical infrastructure problems in Pennsylvania, including blight, particularly in rural Pennsylvania.  He called this series of proposals Restore Pennsylvania.  Governor Wolf simultaneously proposed paying for these initiatives through the imposition of a tax on the extraction of shale gas in the Commonwealth.  While many of the proposals to address the infrastructure problems were well received, the funding of the programs through a shale gas tax has been more controversial.  More information on the entire Restore Pennsylvania initiative can be found HERE.

Of interest to municipalities in the Commonwealth dealing with the problem of blighted properties is the section of the Governor’s proposal that deals specifically with that issue.  The Governor’s proposal acknowledged that nearly all communities within the state have some level of blight.  The cost of dealing with the problem varies, with small municipalities needing funding of perhaps $1 million dollars to address the issue, while larger municipalities, such as Altoona, having concluded that they need tens of millions of dollars to effectively combat the problem.     Continue Reading Governor’s Wolf’s Plan for Addressing Blight in Pennsylvania

In case you missed it earlier today, our webinar on tools to combat blight is available here:  Webinar Link

Matt Tunnell, of Lift Development and the Dauphin County Redevelopment Authority, joined Kandice Hull, Dana Chilson and myself to discuss some of the tools available to combat blight.  The webinar provides great insight for developers, municipal officials, municipal staff, and anyone with an interest in property values, development/redevelopment, or infill opportunities.

After listening to the webinar, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

 

For many years, the opinions of non-resident objectors – especially unsubstantiated opinions – were of little to no relevance in zoning hearings, including conditional use and special exception hearings.  However, applicants and municipal officials could see more objectors from other municipalities present testimony and evidence at hearings because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has endorsed the relevancy of that testimony and evidence in certain situations.

In EQT v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, the applicant sought conditional use approval for a natural gas well site in the Borough of Jefferson Hills.  During the public hearing before borough council, objectors from other municipalities testified about the alleged negative effects on health and quality of life that they experienced from a similar well in a neighboring township that was operated by the conditional use applicant. Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court Alters the Conditional Use and Special Exception Landscape