The Legal Intelligencer | Commentary
By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri | October 19, 2017
On July 6, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Township v. Hansen-Lloyd, 166 A.3d 496 (Pa Commw. Ct. 2017), addressing several significant land use issues, most notably that the submittal of a mandatory sketch plan creates a vested right to develop the subject property pursuant to the ordinance provisions in effect at the time the plan is submitted.
By Alexa Woronowicz | September 29, 2017
Court granted pipeline company's motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction in action for the taking of property for the construction of an interstate natural gas pipeline because FERC had issued a certificate of public convenience, landowners' due process challenges were attacks on the FERC order disguised as constitutional claims, the court lacked jurisdiction to address a challenge to the FERC order, the filing of a request for a rehearing did not operate as a stay of a certificate order, due process did not require an in-person evidentiary hearing, and the FERC order was not a "conditional order" because the NGA did not contain a requirement that the holder of a FERC certificate satisfy all conditions of the certificate prior to the exercise of eminent domain. Motions granted.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | September 22, 2017
Trial court erred in approving conditional use application for farm-to-table workshop program as an educational use, where the record supported the township's finding that education was an accessory use and the primary use was like that of a restaurant. Order of the trial court reversed.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | September 19, 2017
The defendant property owner failed to demonstrate an unnecessary hardship to justify the grant of two dimensional variances for the construction of a mixed use commercial and residential building, even under the relaxed standard set forth in Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh. The court granted the zoning hearing board's appeal.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | September 1, 2017
Appellant could not rely on 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103, which addresses the transfer of erroneously filed matters, to transfer his dismissed federal action to state court to seek relief from a zoning board decision after failing to appeal that decision to the trial court. The court affirmed the trial court's order.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | September 1, 2017
Property owners' use of residential property to build and maintain race cars was not an accessory use of the property where it was not subordinate to the principal use because property owners did not reside on the property and such activity did not contribute to the comfort or necessity of the occupants of the property. Order of the trial court affirmed.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | September 1, 2017
Trial court properly entered judgment for city and did not abuse its discretion in using the common dictionary definition of "affected" in determining the meaning of the phrase "affected property owners" for the purpose of determining the veto threshold for a BID and in finding that all properties in the proposed BID district had to be counted. Affirmed.
By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri | August 31, 2017
On June 27, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 412 (Pa Commw. Ct. 2017), holding that municipal subdivision and land development ordinances (SALDO) can be enforced through private causes of action. The case was a matter of first impression under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., (MPC), the state law establishing the framework for zoning and land use development regulations in Pennsylvania.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | August 25, 2017
The trial court erred in affirming the disapproval of a sketch plan for an age-restricted development based on certain height requirements since the new height requirements were enacted after the plaintiff developer successfully sought a special exception. The appellate court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.
By thelegalintelligencer | The Legal Intelligencer | August 25, 2017
The trial court failed to adhere to the proper procedure required of it in cases such as this, where petitioner successfully challenged a zoning ordinance but also demanded site-specific relief. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Celebrate outstanding achievement in law firms, chambers, in-house legal departments and alternative business structures.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Epstein Becker & Green is seeking an associate to joins its Commercial Litigation practice in our Columbus or Cincinnati offices. Ca...
Job Opportunity: Location: Prestigious Florida Law Firm seeks to hire a Business attorney with at least 5 years of experience for their Ft. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS