lehigh valley land use briefing - stevens & lee · gorsline v. bd. of supervisors of fairfield...
Post on 09-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Lehigh Valley Land Use Briefing
October 2, 2014
2 2
About Stevens & Lee 15 Offices 6 States 220 Professionals
including 170 Lawyers
Lehigh Valley Office 190 Brodhead Road, Suite 200 Bethlehem, PA 18017 (610) 691-7111 STEVENS & LEE
3
Today’s Speakers Blake C. Marles, Esq.
What the State Constitution’s “Environmental Amendment” Means for Land Development
The Recent Bretz Case – Are the Courts Setting Their Own Rules for Stormwater Management
John C. Bear State Government Actions and Where They
Intersect with Municipal Issues
James F. Kratz, Esq. Development Agreements and Public Improvements Statutory and Case Law Update – May 2013
through August 2014
Steven D. Buck, Esq. Condominium and Planned Community Issues
4
Disclaimer This presentation contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of Stevens & Lee professionals. Stevens & Lee is not, by means of this presentation, rendering legal, business, financial or other professional advice or services. This presentation is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal and/or professional advisor. Stevens & Lee, its affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this presentation.
Stevens & Lee expressly disclaims any liability in connection with use of this presentation or its contents by any third party.
2014 Stevens & Lee. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted or otherwise distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Stevens & Lee. Any reproduction, transmission or distribution of this form or any of the material herein is prohibited and is in violation of law.
4 STEVENS & LEE
5
What the State Constitution’s “Environmental Amendment” Means for Land Development
Blake C. Marles, Esq. (610) 997-5060 bcm@stevenslee.com
STEVENS & LEE
Article 1, Section 27
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the 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 all the people.
6 STEVENS & LEE
PA Constitution Declaration of Rights
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
7 STEVENS & LEE
A Careful Historical Balancing Act
Reciprocity of Advantage The benefit to the community that comes
from the regulation should be approximately equal to the burden the regulation causes. When the burden outweighs the benefits, there is a taking of private property.
PA. Coal Co. v. McMahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)
8 STEVENS & LEE
A Careful Historical Balancing Act Standing
Until now, a litigant had to show a direct personal interest in a controversy to be able to sue, even under this Section 27
9 STEVENS & LEE
A Careful Historical Balancing Act Three Part Payne Test (1973)
Is there compliance with applicable laws and regulations?
Is there an attempt to minimize any environmental incursion?
Does the environmental harm so clearly outweigh the benefits to be derived that the activity should be stopped?
10 STEVENS & LEE
Act 13 of 2012 The PA Oil and Gas Act
The goal was to facilitate the prompt expansion of the Marcellus oil and gas industry in PA Made oil and gas drilling permitted uses in
all zoning districts
Established uniform statewide setbacks for fracking and drilling operations
Essentially pre-empted much local zoning, in favor of state regulation
11 STEVENS & LEE
Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
On December 19, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional major parts of PA’s Act 13, in an extraordinary 115 page plurality decision
12 STEVENS & LEE
Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (cont’d)
In doing that, the Court created the potential for a whole body of law that will generate uncertainty for the municipal and development communities for at least a decade
13 STEVENS & LEE
The End of the Balancing Test? Section 27 constrains governmental entities to
exercise authority “in a manner that promotes sustainable property use and economic development.” Robinson, p. 958
Contrast with
Ordinances that unduly restrict development do not strike an appropriate balance. Main St. Dev. Group, Inc. v. Tinicum Twp. Bd. Of Supervisors,(PA Comm. 2011)
Query: If a development plan complies with all ordinance requirements, can approval be denied because a governmental body decides what is proposed is not sustainable?
14 STEVENS & LEE
Mandatory Environmental Impact Analyses?
Section 27 “directs the ‘preservation ‘ of broadly defined values of environment, a construct that necessarily emphasizes the importance of each value separately, but also implies a holistic analytical approach to ensure both the protection from harm or damage, and to insure the maintenance and perpetuation of an environmental quality for the benefit of future generations.” Robinson, page 951
Query: What evaluative standards must be followed, if they are not spelled out in a regulation or an ordinance?
Must actual, or likely, or possible environmental degradation be shown to
deny approval? Whose burden of proof? The Municipality? The Applicant? An Objector?
15 STEVENS & LEE
Municipal Liability as the Environmental “Trustee”
The Commonwealth (as well as its municipalities) has a “duty to refrain from permitting or encouraging the degradation of public natural resources…through direct state action or indirectly…because of the state’s failure to restrain the actions of private parties.” Robinson, p.957
As a trustee, the Commonwealth (as well as its municipalities) must “act affirmatively to protect the environment, through legislative action.” Robinson, p. 958
16 STEVENS & LEE
Municipal Liability as the Environmental “Trustee” (cont’d)
A municipality has to decide if a proposed action places a higher environmental burden on some citizens than on others, because if it does, it will violate the municipal trustee’s duty of impartiality to treat the environmental beneficiaries “equitably in light of the purposes of the trust.” Robinson, p. 980 There is a duty to act toward public natural resources with “prudence, loyalty and impartiality.” Robinson, p. 957
Query: A residential neighbor of a non- residential use ALWAYS bears a heavier burden than residents with homes next door. If a developer who meets ordinance requirements is turned down, is there a “taking” of its property rights under PA. Coal v. McMahon? If there is approval, is there a taking of property rights from the residential neighbor, because he/she is asked to bear a “disproportionate burden?”
17 STEVENS & LEE
If no citizen can bear an unequal burden from neighboring development, how does a municipality meet its other constitutional burden to provide for all possible uses within its jurisdictional boundaries?
What does this do to the concept of “mixed use” communities?
Does the explanation of the “purpose” for a zoning district suddenly have actual legal relevance?
18 STEVENS & LEE
Does This Reasoning Apply to Stormwater Regulation?
Does a municipality have an affirmative duty to assure that the pesticides and herbicides from my neighbor’s treated yard do not encroach on my yard, or in nearby streams?
Does a municipality which collects grass clippings and distributes them as compost have to assure that the compost does not contain herbicides and pesticides?
19 STEVENS & LEE
Every Person in the Commonwealth Can Litigate – No Matter Where the Project May Be!
“This Court perceives no impediment to citizen beneficiaries enforcing the constitutional prohibition in accordance with established principals of judicial review.” Robinson, p.
Permitted litigants: Delaware River Keeper, an environmental action
group, upon alleging that one of its members is suffering immediate or threatened injury (there is no fracking in the Delaware River basin to date);
A medical doctor because he alleged that he couldn’t accurately report his findings in medical records without disclosure of fracking chemicals;
A Township Supervisor in Bucks County, where no fracking has occurred
20 STEVENS & LEE
But This is Only a Plurality Decision – Why Does it Matter?
Gorsline v. Bd. Of Supervisors of Fairfield Township, (Lycoming Co. Aug. 29, 2014) “While the Court understands the
constraints the Board may have been operating under as a result of Act 13 and the litigation regarding its constitutionality, our Supreme Court has now ruled with respect to such, the citizen’s rights cannot be ignored and must be protected.”
21 STEVENS & LEE
22
State Government Actions and Where They Intersect with Municipal Issues
John C. Bear (717) 255-7385 jcb@griffinslconsulting.com
STEVENS & LEE
Legislative Process
Civics 101 – How a Bill Becomes a Law Overview
The key phases of the legislative process: Development Phase
Education Phase
Advocacy Phase
23 STEVENS & LEE
Development Phase
Developing and refining the issue
Aligning stakeholder support
Drafting and introducing legislation
Assigning legislation to committees
24 STEVENS & LEE
Education Phase
Briefing Committee Chairmen and Executive Directors
Meeting with Committee Members
Meeting with House and Senate Members
25 STEVENS & LEE
Advocacy Phase
Attending committee meetings
Meeting with leadership of Caucuses to advocate passage
Meeting with Officials of the Governor’s Office to advocate enactment
26 STEVENS & LEE
Legislative/Budget Timeline
27 STEVENS & LEE
The State Government Monitor and Connector
Providing insight into Pennsylvania’s political process
Tracking of General Assembly and Executive action Bill introductions; Committee action; Floor
action; Executive action; Press and political announcements
Providing notice to clients of General Assembly and Executive actions and predicted actions
28 STEVENS & LEE
The State Government Monitor and Connector (cont’d)
Additional services
Assisting in the development and drafting of client legislative proposals
Advising in the formation of a legislative strategy
Arranging meetings between clients and key decision-makers Providing strategic advice and assistance in
how to proceed or respond to legislative and regulatory actions or issues
Monitoring Commonwealth procurement solicitations
29 STEVENS & LEE
Procurement Consulting
State Government Procurement – A 3-Tiered Service Basic, Deluxe and Premium Service Tiers
Monitoring Solicitations and Request-for-Proposals
Arranging meetings between clients and key decision-makers
Assisting clients with prequalification requirements
Identifying strategic partnerships and providing political guidance
Actively marketing the clients’ products/solutions intending to lead to sole source procurements or favorable RFPs
Assisting in proposal development
30 STEVENS & LEE
Procurement Consulting (cont’d)
Additional services Advising on insurance coverage and security and
performance bonds
Reviewing of contract(s)
Filing statement of claims and protests of solicitation and awards
Representing before the Board of Claims and Commonwealth Court
Assisting in Small and Disadvantaged/Veteran Business certification
Providing representation for retainage and labor issues and disputes
Providing representation at disbarment or suspension hearings
31 STEVENS & LEE
State Government Incentives
Where to go for state assistance: Commonwealth Operating Budget
Commonwealth Capital Budget
Commonwealth Financing Authority
32 STEVENS & LEE
Development Agreements and Public Improvements
James F. Kratz, Esq. (610) 997-5065 jfk@stevenslee.com
33 STEVENS & LEE
Development Agreements
No definition in MPC
References in MPC MPC Section 509 (b) – financial
improvements agreement
MPC Section 509 (e) – agreement for completion of the improvements
34 STEVENS & LEE
Typical Development Agreement
MPC Section 509
Approval Resolution
Identify improvements via plan
Schedule of completion
Financial security – amount and type PA P.E. certified cost estimate
Dedication of public improvements
Maintenance of public improvements Maintenance Agreement
35 STEVENS & LEE
Operation and Maintenance Agreement (O&M Agreement)
Act 167 Ordinance
Storm water facilities per SW plan Duties – construction and maintenance
Easement to municipality
Right of municipality to remedy
Recorded – obligations run with the title
Tracking for clean water act and clean streams law
36 STEVENS & LEE
PennDOT Drainage Facilities
Within PennDOT R/W Municipal HOP
Developer construction
Developer maintenance
Recorded
PennDOT Publication 282
37 STEVENS & LEE
MPC Section 509 Completion of Improvements or Guarantee
Improvements per SALDO
Construction prior to final plan Pre-security construction agreement
Financial security in lieu of completion Development Agreement
Not limited to public improvements Cannot include HOP secured
improvements
38 STEVENS & LEE
Water Mains or Sanitary Sewer Lines
MPC Section 509(l) – water or sewer facilities, or both, under jurisdiction of municipality, municipal authority or public utility
If municipal authority or public utility, financial security gets posted with the authority or utility (not municipality)
39 STEVENS & LEE
Financial Security – Types
MPC Section 509(c) without limitation as to other types …
Irrevocable letter of credit Federal or PA chartered lending institutions
Restrictive or Escrow Account
Performance Bond Bonding Company – authorization to do
business in PA ? Who supplies the bond - Can a party other
than the developer supply the bond?
Mortgage 40 STEVENS & LEE
What Does Financial Security Cover?
Public improvements only?
Private improvements also?
E&S controls, SWM – impervious cover
Screening?
Pavement?
Public interests v. private interests MPC Section 509(a) improvements per
SALDO
MPC Section 509(f) posted for the completion of the required improvements
41 STEVENS & LEE
Amount of Financial Security
MPC Section 509(f) 110% of cost of improvements
Estimated as of 90 days after scheduled completion
May adjust amount annually
Beyond annual adjustment, may increase to ensure equals 110%
42 STEVENS & LEE
Cost Estimate
MPC Section 509(g)
Applicant’s PA licensed engineer
Certified cost of completion
Municipal engineer review
If disagreement, estimate certified by third engineer chosen mutually and paid equally by applicant and municipality
43 STEVENS & LEE
Final Plans for Sections or Stages
MPC Section 509(i)
Guarantees as to improvements
Essential to protection of any finally approved section
44 STEVENS & LEE
Permits Financial security in place Building, grading or permits for erection or
placement of improvements Cannot condition issuance upon completion of
improvements
Financial security in place Cannot withhold occupancy permits if:
Streets improved to mud-free or permanently passable condition, and
Improvements completed necessary for reasonable use or occupancy
Substantially completed – 90% of cost Judgment of municipal engineer Used, occupied or operated for it intended use
45 STEVENS & LEE
Release of Portion of Financial Security
MPC Section 509(j)
Written request
45 days for municipal engineer to certify completion
Governing body shall release amount of municipal engineer estimate
45 day deemed approval
46 STEVENS & LEE
MPC§510 Release of Improvement Bond
Written notification of completion
Municipal engineer inspection with written report
Time limits for actions on release
Deemed approval
47 STEVENS & LEE
Dedication of Improvements
MPC Section 509(k) – governing body accepts dedication
Municipality may require financial security
Secure structural integrity and functioning of dedicated improvements
Maximum security – 15% for 18 months Maintenance Agreement
48 STEVENS & LEE
Public Improvements
No MPC definition
Public grounds – parks, schools, operated facilities, historic sites
Streets
49 STEVENS & LEE
Streets – Public and Private
Private – residential development Why?
Public standards but not accepted Why?
50 STEVENS & LEE
Storm Water Management Facilities
Commercial or industrial sites
Residential developments HOA maintenance and replacement
Storm water municipal authorities Fees or taxes
51 STEVENS & LEE
Expense Reimbursement
Reasonable and necessary expenses for inspection
No duplicative inspections – municipal authority as example
Reimbursement schedule in ordinance or resolution
Itemized bill
Dispute resolution
52 STEVENS & LEE
MPC Section 511 Remedies for Completion of Improvements
Power granted to municipality to enforce corporate bond or other security
Insufficient security
Option of municipality for installation
Legal action to recover necessary moneys to complete
Proceeds use solely for installation
53 STEVENS & LEE
54
Condominium and Planned Community Issues
Steven D. Buck, Esq. (610) 478-2273 sdb@stevenslee.com
STEVENS & LEE
Planned Community Basics Common Features:
Declaration Units Association Common Elements
Planned Community – Association owns Common Elements
Condominium – Unit owners own fraction of Common Elements
Flexibility Declarant’s ability to modify the community
Additional Real Estate Convertible Real Estate
Withdrawable Real Estate 55 STEVENS & LEE
Logan Greens Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Church Reserve, LLC, (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., Sept. 20, 2013), allocator denied, (Pa., April 29, 2014)
February 2003, Township approves residential subdivision for 52 lot with 30 acres of open space designated as Lot 53
July 30, 2003, Planned Community created with Lot 53 as convertible/withdrawable real estate
September 2003, Township approves subdivision of Lot 53 into 5 lots, with Lot 54 remaining as convertible/withdrawable real estate
Declarant had until July 30, 2010 (7 years from recording declaration) to convert/withdraw Lot 54 from association
56 STEVENS & LEE
Logan Greens Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Church Reserve, LLC, (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., Sept. 20, 2013), allocator denied, (Pa., April 29, 2014) (cont’d)
February 2011, Association initiates quiet title action asserting full ownership over Lot 54
Failure to convert/withdraw results in Lot 54 permanently remaining as common element
Developer asserts Permit Extension Act as defense The Permit Extension Act was originally enacted
as Act 46 of 2008 and suspended until July 1, 2013, the expiration of certain municipal and state land development approvals due to the economic recession “The expiration date of an approval by a
government agency that is granted for or in effect during the extension period, whether obtained before or after the beginning of the extension period, shall be automatically suspended during the extension period.”
57 STEVENS & LEE
Logan Greens Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Church Reserve, LLC, (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., Sept. 20, 2013), allocator denied, (Pa., April 29, 2014) (cont’d)
Approval: “… (3) creating additional units and common elements out of convertible real estate in a condominium or planned community.”
Government agency: The Commonwealth, a political subdivision or an agency, department, authority, commission or board of the Commonwealth or a political subdivision…”
Extension Period: The period beginning after December 31, 2008 and ending before July 2, 2013
58 STEVENS & LEE
Logan Greens Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Church Reserve, LLC, (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., Sept. 20, 2013), allocator denied, (Pa., April 29, 2014) (cont’d)
February 2011, Association initiates quiet title action asserting full ownership over Lot 54 (cont’d)
York County Court rules for Developer/Declarant. Commonwealth Court reverses. PA Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal
Since the “Approval” was not by a “Government Agency”, Permit Extension Act does not apply
Result: Lot 54 remains common element in the community – Declarant loses ability to create a unit for sale
59 STEVENS & LEE
Permit Extension Act
Re-enacted as Act 54 of 2013, effective July 2, 2013 as the Development Permit Extension Act
Extension Period is December 31, 2008 to July 2, 2016
Substantive provisions are identical to prior act
Except: Approvals received after July 2, 2013 are not automatically extended
60 STEVENS & LEE
Act 37 of 2013 – Effective July 2, 2013
Amendments to the Condominium Act and Planned Community Act
Time frame for declarant to convert/withdraw real estate is extended from 7 years to the later of: 10 years following recording the declaration;
or
For preliminary plans with final plans approved in sections, 120 days after final municipal plan approval of each final plat according to the phasing schedule set forth in MPC §508(4)(v)
61 STEVENS & LEE
Act 37 of 2013 – Effective July 2, 2013 (cont’d)
However – only applies to declarations recorded within 7 years of the effective date of the Act Declaration must be recorded after July 2,
2006
No assistance to Logan Greens declarant
Declarant must amend the declaration to provide for longer time limits Association need not join in the amendment
62 STEVENS & LEE
Other Planned Community Issues
Approval by governing body? Not a requirement under either Act
Land development plans include a condo-sheet or planned community-sheet Recorded?
Consistency with Declaration Plat
63 STEVENS & LEE
Other Planned Community Issues (cont’d)
Shaffer – Site Condominium Attempt to avoid subdivision/municipal
approval Subdivision of condo without going through
Township approval
Court rejects
If new project already undergoing municipal review, include a plan sheet just showing unit boundaries
If existing project, may be okay without additional approvals, but consider discussing with Township Solicitor and staff
64 STEVENS & LEE
Other Planned Community Issues (cont’d)
Review of declaration by solicitor Approval?
How are common elements managed
Proper funding for future operation and maintenance
65 STEVENS & LEE
Other Planned Community Issues (cont’d)
Long term maintenance of common elements
Starts with declarant/developer
Proper funding of association when take over
Stormwater facilities Out of sight/out of mind
Dues to keep up maintenance
Involvement of municipality for upkeep
Stormwater Authority Authorized by recent amendments to Authorities
Act
Take over responsibility of future maintenance of facilities
Who pays?
66 STEVENS & LEE
Other Planned Community Issues (cont’d)
PennDOT Road/access drive as common element
accessing a state road
Changes to the access point By Community
Nearby development
Who signs? Association
Unit owners
Pre-empt with language in Declaration
67 STEVENS & LEE
68
The Recent Bretz Case: Are the Courts Setting Their Own Rules for
Stormwater Management?
Blake C. Marles, Esq. (610) 997-5060 bcm@stevenslee.com
STEVENS & LEE
The Common Law Rules Regarding Stormwater Management
69 STEVENS & LEE
The Common Enemy Rule
Each Landowner can take whatever steps one pleases on one’s own land to protect it from storm water damage without regard to the adverse consequences those actions may have upon neighboring property
The PA rule at the turn of the last century Pa. Coal Co. v. Sanderson (1906)
70 STEVENS & LEE
The Civil Law Rule
An adjoining landowner is entitled to have the normal course of natural drainage maintained, such that adjoiners are not obligated to accept or dispose of stormwater which is different in rate or character from that which naturally flowed to them
This was the favored PA approach throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, and was supported by a broad body of case law which gave certainty to the rights of upstream and downstream property owners. See Rau v. Wilden Acres, Inc. (1954)
71 STEVENS & LEE
The Civil Law Rule (2)
This rule generally permitted an increase in the quantity of stormwater discharged to downstream properties on the theory that all development results in impervious cover, so quantitative regulation would impede or preclude desired development Chamberlin v. Ciaffoni (1953)
72 STEVENS & LEE
The Reasonable Use Rule
Discharge onto lower or adjacent property is permissible so long as the nature of the discharge is “reasonable.” This “you’ll know it’s bad when you see it”
approach actually pre-dated the common enemy rule in PA, but was supplanted by the Common Enemy Rule. See Davidson v. Sanders (Pa. Super. 1896), and McMahon v. Thornton (Pa. Super 1897).
73 STEVENS & LEE
The Rules Begin to Get Muddy
“…where the water is diverted from its natural channel or where it is unreasonably or unnecessarily changed in quantity or quality… the lower owner received a legal injury.” Lucas v. Ford, (1949);
A municipality is liable for flooding when its drainage system unreasonably and unnecessarily causes an increase in the quantity of water discharged onto a highway, causing accidents. Piekarski v. Club Overlook Estates, Inc. (Pa. Super 1980).
74 STEVENS & LEE
The Courts Created the Rules and Didn’t Harmonize Them, So the Engineering Community Did
One can’t increase the rate of flow, and pass it to downstream land
One can’t rechannel flow, and change how it impacts downstream land
One can’t alter the nature of the flow
Volumetric increases in flow are expected and acceptable
75 STEVENS & LEE
The Floodplain Management Act (Act 166) and the Stormwater Management Act (Act 167)
The legislature finally stepped in, and codified what the engineers had been doing
Then the regulators stepped in…
76 STEVENS & LEE
National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) Regulation Under the Federal Clean Water Act
In 1984, the federal government used the Clean Water Act to begin to treat stormwater discharges the same way that they had been treating industrial discharges, and in doing so, began to undermine the certainty municipalities and developers had as to what was allowed and what was not
That process continues, and for the most part, operates outside of the control of either state rulemakers or state courts
77 STEVENS & LEE
The Court is Now Back in the Stormwater Regulation Business
Bretz v. Central Bucks School District, 86 A3d 306 (2014)
78 STEVENS & LEE
Bretz v. Central Bucks School District, 86 A3d 306 (2014)
The determination of whether a landowner “has diverted the water from its natural channel by artificial means” does not involve consideration of the reasonableness of the change in quantity or location flowing onto lower land
Rather, to establish liability, a plaintiff need only show that a landowner collected and/or concentrated surface water from its natural channel through an artificial medium and that the water was discharged onto plaintiff’s property in an increased volume or force, however, slight. Bretz p. 316
79 STEVENS & LEE
Bretz v. Central Bucks School District, 86 A3d 306 (2014)
Does this decision require total infiltration of all new stormwater volume?
Is there any design frequency storm which can safely be used for design?
500 year storm?
1000 year storm?
80 STEVENS & LEE
A municipal stormwater collection system is designed for a 25 year design frequency storm, and includes detention basins. We experience a 30 year storm, and the excess water spills over a spillway, as it is designed to do.
Municipal liability?
81 STEVENS & LEE
Query
A developer is required to infiltrate the stormwater that comes off the roof of a large industrial building. Water from a 100 year storm can’t possibly be accommodated with infiltration wells, so excess water is diverted to a detention pond, again designed for a 25 year storm. Water flows down a spillway into an established drainage swale, but because the roof is impervious, the volume of water is greater than the pre-development volume. The drainage plan was approved by the Township and by PA DEP.
Municipal liability?
Developer liability? 82 STEVENS & LEE
Query
Query: The downspouts on your home discharge stormwater near your foundation, so there is dampness in the basement. You put extenders on the downspouts, to divert the water into the grass. There is a huge storm, and not all of the water can infiltrate into the soil. Water ponds on your neighbor’s yard for an hour after the storm and you are in an unrelated dispute with that neighbor.
Nuisance suit potential?
83 STEVENS & LEE
Query
Statutory and Case Law Update – May 2013 through August 2014
84 STEVENS & LEE
James F. Kratz, Esq. (610) 997-5065 jfk@stevenslee.com
Land Use Case Law Update (2013-2014)
Monitor published appellate level decisions re: land use/zoning
Between 35-50 published cases per year (Commonwealth Court/Supreme Court)
Discuss cases at weekly real estate group conference call
85 STEVENS & LEE
Statutory Update: Development Permit Extension Act – 53 P.S.§ 11703.1 et seq.
2013, July 9, P.L. 362, No. 54, § 2
Amended definition of “Extension Period” to read “The period beginning after December 31, 2008, and ending before July 2, 2016.”
Duration – The extension period established under this act shall be the maximum approval period authorized under this act and shall supersede the normal time period for approvals relating to development. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the government agency from granting additional extensions as provided by law.
Limitation – Any government approval granted after July 2, 2013, shall not be extended beyond the normal approval periods of the government agency without the permission or approval of the government agency.
86 STEVENS & LEE
Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC v. City of Pittsburgh, 67 A.3d 156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 4/30/13)(Pellegrini)
Proposed amendment to zoning ordinance related to signs
Changes made to ordinance after public hearing
No significant disruption to continuity of proposed legislation or appreciable change in language
New public hearing not required
87 STEVENS & LEE
Bernotas v. ZHB of City of Bethlehem, 68 A.3d 1042 (Pa. Cmwlth. 6/7/2013)
Nonconforming use already previously expanded by 50% with special exception approval
Proposed additional expansion beyond percentage allowed by special exception
Court considered proposed deviation to be “dimensional variance” not a use variance
88 STEVENS & LEE
Schmader v. Cranberry Township Board of Supervisors, 67 A.3d 881 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)(Leadbetter)
Zoning decision issued by mail did not contain a date of mailing
Appeal filed more than 30-days after date issuance decision
Since decision was undated, appeal permitted 30-days after receipt
89 STEVENS & LEE
Shaw v. Township of Upper St. Clair ZHB, 71 A.3d 1103 (Pa. Cmwlth. 7/5/2013)(Brobson)
Notice requirements for zoning text amendment versus map amendment are different under MPC
Addition of “mixed development conditional use” that permitted multiple types of uses and only applied to one property effectively was a map amendment
90 STEVENS & LEE
91 STEVENS & LEE
92 STEVENS & LEE
Keener v. Rapho Township ZHB, 79 A.3d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 7/31/2013)(McGinley)
Zoning ordinance interpretation
Ordinance contained arbitrary distinction between commercial and non-commercial operation of the same use
No substantial relation to the health, safety and welfare of the community
93 STEVENS & LEE
Joshua Smith/tla Advert Sign Solutions v. Hanover ZHB, 78 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Cmwlth. 10/16/2013)(Colins)
Billboard case (one of several in 2013)
Limited to industrial district in Borough
No de facto exclusion of use
94 STEVENS & LEE
Ness v. York Township Board of Commissioners, 81 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 12/4/2013)(Simpson)
Challenge to procedural validity of ordinance
Optional notice of enactment of Ordinance published by municipality provided wrong appeal deadline
Appeal dismissed as untimely
95 STEVENS & LEE
Robinson Township, Washington County v. Commonwealth of Pa., 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 12/19/2013)(Castille)
Municipal challenge to the zoning requirements and mandates of Act 13 related to Oil and Gas wells drilling
Zoning provisions of Act 13 ruled unconstitutional by a plurality of Supreme Court
Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, Section 27, PA Constitution)/Due Process
Result: status quo ante – No uniform zoning scheme for oil and gas wells
96 STEVENS & LEE
THW Group, LLC v. ZBA, 86 A.3d 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 3/6/2014)(Simpson)
Interpretation of zoning ordinance that did not specifically allow Methadone clinics
Methadone clinic could meet plain usage of medical office, hospital, medical centers use
ZBA improperly interpreted ordinance to preclude the use based on theory that Methadone clinics did not exist when ordinance adopted
97 STEVENS & LEE
Ion Geophysical Co. v. Hempfield Tp., __ F. Supp. __ (W.D. Pa, 4/10/2014)(Cohill)
Proposed seismic testing on township roads to locate oil and gas
Township had no ordinance establishing standards and refused to enter into an agreement to allow use of roads
Court issued injunction preventing interference with seismic testing on private property and Township roads
98 STEVENS & LEE
Nowicki v. ZHB of Monaca Tp., 91 A.3d 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 5/6/2014)(Colins, S.J.)
Residential property in Planned River-Oriented Development District
Non-commercial, recreational development of properties with river views
Validity variance necessary as regulation essentially confiscatory
99 STEVENS & LEE
100 STEVENS & LEE
101 STEVENS & LEE
Servants Oasis v. ZHB of South Annville Tp., 94 A.3d 457 (Pa. Cmwlth. 6/18/2014)(Leavitt)
Special exception applicant met burden of showing compliance with objective standards
Objectors’ testimony regarding traffic increase and limited access was speculative and did not justify denial
ZHB should have approved special exception
102 STEVENS & LEE
top related