ordinance doctrine in Pennsylvania

2019In Piper Group , the Supreme Court set forth a thorough analysis of its case law on the pending ordinance doctrine: In Casey, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 , a landowner challenged a Warwick Township, Bucks County, zoning ordinance because it failed to provide for multi-family housing. [ ] Two days later, the planning commission recommended adopting a curative ordinance that would provide for multifamily housing in the township, but not in the specific district where the challenger's land was located.

2019In Piper Group , the Supreme Court set forth a thorough analysis of its case law on the pending ordinance doctrine: In Casey, 459 Pa. 219 , 328 A.2d 464 , a landowner challenged a Warwick Township, Bucks County, zoning ordinance because it failed to provide for multi-family housing. [ ] Two days later, the planning commission recommended adopting a curative ordinance that would provide for multifamily housing in the township, but not in the specific district where the challenger's land was located.

2004Finally, in regard to the pending ordinance doctrine, the court relied upon Naylor v. Township of Hellam, 565 Pa. 397 , 408 n.6, 773 A.2d 770 , 776 n.6 (2001) (“The pending ordinance doctrine does not apply to applications for subdivision or land development as they are controlled by section 508(4) of the MPC, which specifically addresses this kind of proposed land use.”).

2004Finally, in regard to the pending ordinance doctrine, the court relied upon Naylor v. Township of Hellam, 565 Pa. 397 , 408 n.6, 773 A.2d 770 , 776 n.6 (2001) (“The pending ordinance doctrine does not apply to applications for subdivision or land development as they are controlled by section 508(4) of the MPC, which specifically addresses this kind of proposed land use.”).

2018The right to trial by jury preserved by the Pennsylvania Constitution is the right as it existed when such provision was first written into the state Constitution and does not apply to a summary proceeding for an ordinance violation.” Bacik v. Commonwealth, 61 Pa. Cmwlth. 552, 434 A.2d 860, 863 (1981).

2005The right to trial by jury preserved by the Pennsylvania Constitution is the right as it existed when such provision was first written into the state Constitution and does not apply to a summary proceeding for an ordinance violation.” Bacik v. Commonwealth, 61 Pa.Cmwlth. 552 , 434 A.2d 860, 863 (1981). ¶ 12 As previously noted, appellant was subject to a fine for his summary offense; the right to trial by jury was not implicated, and appellant was therefore not entitled to a trial by jury.

2024However, this implication is insufficient to prove a claim of selective enforcement, and Landowner offered no additional evidence to satisfy the two-prong test set forth in Spencer, supra. We also conclude that although the Amendment was enacted after the Protasio Building was deemed blighted under the Ordinance, the application of the Amendment is not impermissibly retroactive or violative of the proscription against ex post facto laws.12 Landowner cites FC Station for the proposition that for an ordinance to be given retroactive effect, it “must be pending as of the date of petitioner’s appl

2005In Boron Oil Company v. Kimple, 445 Pa. 327 , 284 A.2d 744 (1971), the court addressed the limitations on the application of the pending ordinance doctrine.

1988Pending Ordinance Doctrine Judge Doyle, writing for this court in Marinari v. Zoning Hearing Board of New Hanover Township, 90 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 601, 604 , 496 A.2d 121 , 123-24 *634 (1985) succinctly summarized the pending ordinance doctrine and its application as follows: Under the ‘pending zoning ordinance doctrine/ a building permit may be refused if at the time of application there is pending an amendment to a zoning ordinance which would prohibit the use of the land for which the permit is sought.

1988Pending Ordinance Doctrine Judge Doyle, writing for this court in Marinari v. Zoning Hearing Board of New Hanover Township, 90 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 601, 604 , 496 A.2d 121 , 123-24 *634 (1985) succinctly summarized the pending ordinance doctrine and its application as follows: Under the ‘pending zoning ordinance doctrine/ a building permit may be refused if at the time of application there is pending an amendment to a zoning ordinance which would prohibit the use of the land for which the permit is sought.

2025See Dowds v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 165 A.3d 75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (subsequent changes to plans submitted after the initial filing date do not result in a new application filing date under the pending ordinance doctrine). 14 where the asserted hardship amounts merely to a developer’s desire to increase a project’s profitability.

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022See In re Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Township, 211 A.3d 845 (Pa. 2019); Lehigh Asphalt Paving & Construction Company v. Board of Supervisors of East Penn Township, 830 A.2d 1063 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).

2022See Cheltenham, 211 A.3d 845 ; Piper, 30 A.3d 1083 ; Naylor, 773 A.2d 770 ; Monumental Properties, 311 A.2d 725 .

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2022Borough of West Conshohocken v. Soppick, 164 A.3d 555, 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (failure to appeal a notice of violation makes the violation conclusive); Lower Mount Bethel Township v. Gacki, 150 A.3d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (landowners’ failure to appeal the violation notice resulted in a conclusive determination of their violation of the ordinance); Koken v. Colonial Assurance Co., 885 A.2d 1078, 1101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), aff’d, 893 A.2d 98 (Pa. 2006) (a party waives the right to appeal an order if notice of the appeal is not filed within thirty (30) days after entry of the relevant order);

2017Ligonier Twp. v. Nied, 161 A.3d 1039, 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

2017Ligonier Twp. v. Nied, 161 A.3d 1039, 1048 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).