Alyssa E Golfieri

April 25, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

On March 29, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 90 (Pa Commw. Ct. 2017), significantly limiting when a municipality may initiate a civil enforcement action seeking a judgment for fines for the alleged violation of its zoning ordinance.

By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri

10 minute read

February 16, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

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, authorizes a municipality to adopt a zoning ordinance containing provisions permitting uses of land by special exception administered by the zoning hearing board.

By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri

13 minute read

October 20, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Pennsylvania, municipal governing bodies and zoning hearing boards are entitled to considerable deference when interpreting and applying their own zoning ordinances. This deference is based largely on the premise that municipal bodies and boards charged with drafting and administering zoning ordinances possess an unparalleled knowledge of and expertise in their own ordinances, as in In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659, 669 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).

By Krista-Ann M. Staley 
and Alyssa E. Golfieri

16 minute read

August 26, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

On July 14, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Hunterstown Ruritan Club v. Straban Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 327 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016), confirming that a property owner's failure to register a nonconforming use with a municipality and obtain a nonconforming use certificate is not fatal to the continuance of the use.

By Blaine A. Lucas 
and Alyssa E. Golfieri

15 minute read

June 29, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

On March 2, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Embreeville Redevelopment v. Board. of Supervisors of West Bradford Township, 134 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016), which clarified when a zoning ordinance amendment, although solely textual on its face, constitutes a zoning map change and triggers the additional notice requirements under Section 609(b) of the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10609(b).

By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri

15 minute read

April 24, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

On Jan. 13, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Honey Brook Estates v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 52 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016), that reaffirmed a municipality's obligation to act in good faith when processing subdivision and land development plans. The Commonwealth Court originally articulated the elements of this obligation in Raum v. Board of Supervisors, 370 A.2d 777 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1977).

By Blaine A. Lucas 
and Alyssa E. Golfieri

12 minute read

February 26, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Editor's note: The authors represented Cardinal before the township, trial court and Commonwealth Court.

By Blaine A. Lucas, 
Krista-Ann M. Staley and 
Alyssa E. Golfieri

6 minute read

December 29, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

On Oct. 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rendered a decision in Scott v. City of Philadelphia, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2510 (Pa. 2015), clarifying the difference in the law related to standing before a zoning hearing board governed by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., (MPC) and standing before a zoning board of adjustment governed by the Pennsylvania First Class City (i.e., Philadelphia) Home Rule Act, 53 P.S. Section 13131.1, ("Home Rule Act). Attention to the intricacies of the law governing standing is critical because a failure to challenge an objector's standing at the appropriate stage of a proceeding can result in the use of an applicant's property being interrupted or prevented by an objector who may not be directly impacted by that use.

By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri

8 minute read

December 28, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

On Oct. 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rendered a decision in Scott v. City of Philadelphia, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2510 (Pa. 2015), clarifying the difference in the law related to standing before a zoning hearing board governed by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., (MPC) and standing before a zoning board of adjustment governed by the Pennsylvania First Class City (i.e., Philadelphia) Home Rule Act, 53 P.S. Section 13131.1, ("Home Rule Act). Attention to the intricacies of the law governing standing is critical because a failure to challenge an objector's standing at the appropriate stage of a proceeding can result in the use of an applicant's property being interrupted or prevented by an objector who may not be directly impacted by that use.

By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri

8 minute read

November 03, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Commonwealth Court recently rendered a decision in Lyons Borough v. Township of Maxatawny, 2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 310 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015), addressing the scope of a municipal governing body's authority under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code to impose conditions on a developer's final land development plan approval. The court's decision in Lyons is an important development because it significantly restricts the type of conditions a municipality may impose on a final land development approval, finding several conditions routinely imposed by municipalities at that stage to be improper.

By Blaine A. Lucas and Alyssa E. Golfieri

5 minute read