Township motion in Pennsylvania

2011It cites Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District of Philadelphia, 557 Pa. 126 , 732 A.2d 578 (1999), for support, where we stated that the Commonwealth Court, acting in its appellate capacity, was subject to the rules of appellate procedure, not the rules of civil procedure and, therefore, lacked the authority to join additional parties.

2011It cites Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District of Philadelphia, 557 Pa. 126 , 732 A.2d 578 (1999), for support, where we stated that the Commonwealth Court, acting in its appellate capacity, was subject to the rules of appellate procedure, not the rules of civil procedure and, therefore, lacked the authority to join additional parties.

2010Similarly, in Newtown Township Board of Supervisors v. Greater Media Radio Co., 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 157 , 587 A.2d 841 (1991), we held that the board failed to keep its role as an unbiased tribunal where the township’s solicitor served as a legal adviser to the board of supervisors while also representing the township at the hearing in opposition to a conditional use application.

2010Similarly, in Newtown Township Board of Supervisors v. Greater Media Radio Co., 138 Pa.Cmwlth. 157 , 587 A.2d 841 (1991), we held that the board failed to keep its role as an unbiased tribunal where the township’s solicitor served as a legal adviser to the board of supervisors while also representing the township at the hearing in opposition to a conditional use application.

2007However, the Supreme Court observed that Section 606 is “designed to curtail decision making by local supervisors on matters affecting their own self-interest” and, further, that “the legislative intent to limit self-interested decision making by supervisors is, again, manifest.” White Deer Township, 590 Pa. at 306 , 912 A.2d at 785 . 7 The Supreme Court pointed out that the heart of the Township’s challenge was that the Ordinance was passed to benefit the legislators voting on it, ie., the supervisors.

2007However, the Supreme Court observed that Section 606 is “designed to curtail decision making by local supervisors on matters affecting their own self-interest” and, further, that “the legislative intent to limit self-interested decision making by supervisors is, again, manifest.” White Deer Township, 590 Pa. at 306 , 912 A.2d at 785 . 7 The Supreme Court pointed out that the heart of the Township’s challenge was that the Ordinance was passed to benefit the legislators voting on it, ie., the supervisors.

1977For example, in Commonwealth v. Ashenfelder, 413 Pa. 517 , 198 A.2d 514 (1964), the Supreme Court held that [the] fact that the Commonwealth, erroneously, in the caption is made the party prosecuting does not change the nature of this proceeding, i. e., a suit for the recovery of a penalty due to the Township for a violation of its ordinance.

1977For example, in Commonwealth v. Ashenfelder, 413 Pa. 517 , 198 A.2d 514 (1964), the Supreme Court held that [the] fact that the Commonwealth, erroneously, in the caption is made the party prosecuting does not change the nature of this proceeding, i. e., a suit for the recovery of a penalty due to the Township for a violation of its ordinance.

2023Further, the trial court observed that it had denied the Township’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the Aubreys’ expert witness, whose identity and proposed testimony they disclosed “only days before trial[,5 such that the Aubreys] had the opportunity to question the [Township’s] 5 In its motion in limine, the Township averred that, although discovery had been closed for more than a year, the Aubreys did not provide notice of their intent to call an expert witness 17 expert and their own regarding the price quotes for the replacement of the pipe.” Id. (emphasis added).

2022Seymour, 708 A.2d at 864 .

2022We have held that a challenge to the “constitutionality and enforceability of the ordinance” is waived where the landowner has “failed to appeal the notice of violation to the [Zoning Board].” Id.

2022The Township’s other issues - that the Board erred by concluding that the Township violated a past practice, and the Board decided matters beyond the scope of the Charge - will be addressed herein in conjunction with this Court’s analysis of this issue. 24 The Dissent contends that what it terms “sick leave and parental leave under the FMLA” are so “inextricably intertwined,” Towamencin Twp., __ A.3d at __, dissenting slip op. at 3, that the Board’s consideration of the Township’s prior sick leave approval for a male police officer’s knee and hip surgery was relevant in adjudicating this matte

2021If this proceeding was governed by the rules in place at the time of the joinder then the Township’s objection to the joinder continues.” O.R. at 266. 15 manifestly abused its discretion or committed an error of law, or [] any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to sustain its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence.” Acitelli, 325 A.2d at 492 .

2020Id. at 35-42 .

2020Hutchison, 611 A.2d at 1289 .

2020In response, Applicant argues that the Board erred by (1) ignoring unrebutted expert testimony concerning the proposal’s consistency with the purpose of the C-2 district, (2) ignoring Pennsylvania law treating a car wash as a generally permitted 3 The Board, though named as an appellee, joins in the Township’s brief on appeal. 4 “Where a trial court takes no additional evidence in an appeal from a decision of [a zoning b]oard, this Court is limited to considering whether the board erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion.” German v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 41 A.3d 947 , 949 n.1 (Pa.

2019On that point, the Township asserts that the trial court erred in granting site-specific relief to the Wimers because it provided "a windfall beyond what [was] necessary to cure the alleged defect in the ordinance." (Township's brief at 16) (citing Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Board of Supervisors , 612 Pa. 282 , 30 A.3d 1083 (2011) ).

2019On that point, the Township asserts that the trial court erred in granting site-specific relief to the Wimers because it provided "a windfall beyond what [was] necessary to cure the alleged defect in the ordinance." (Township's brief at 16) (citing Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Board of Supervisors , 612 Pa. 282 , 30 A.3d 1083 (2011) ).

2018In Delaware Riverkeeper Network, 190 A.3d 1126 , the zoning hearing board evaluated the ordinance challenged under the Environmental Rights Amendment on the basis of the language of the ordinance.

2018Id.

2018Southwest Regional Tax Bureau v. Kania, 49 A.3d 529 , 532 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d. 1157 , 1160 n. 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 3 .Assignee has filed applications to strike numerous statements in the Township's brief and reply on the ground that they allegedly are not supported by the trial court record.

2015In Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010), the requester sought a copy of his judgment of sentence from the Department of Corrections (Department).

2015Additionally, even if Applicant were correct in its characterization of the Hempt Tract as a “peninsula,” in our 2014 decision in Penn Street, we recognized that, “up to this point there has been no successful claim of reverse spot zoning in a ‘peninsula’ [(as opposed to an ‘island’)] fact situation.” Id. at 1126 (quoting Atherton, 29 A.3d at 1209 ).

2015The court issued an opinion explaining that it viewed the challenged tax as a gross-receipts tax and not a transactional tax such as the one disapproved in Lynnebrook & Woodbrook Associates, L.P. v. Borough of Millersville, 600 Pa. 108 , 963 A.2d 1261 (2008) (holding that an ordinance imposing a flat $30.00 tax on the consummation of residential leases was prohibited by the LTEA).

2015The court issued an opinion explaining that it viewed the challenged tax as a gross-receipts tax and not a transactional tax such as the one disapproved in Lynnebrook & Woodbrook Associates, L.P. v. Borough of Millersville, 600 Pa. 108 , 963 A.2d 1261 (2008) (holding that an ordinance imposing a flat $30.00 tax on the consummation of residential leases was prohibited by the LTEA).

2015Additionally, even if Applicant were correct in its characterization of the Hempt Tract as a “peninsula,” in our 2014 decision in Penn Street, we recognized that, “up to this point there has been no successful claim of reverse spot zoning in a ‘peninsula’ [(as opposed to an ‘island’)] fact situation.” Id. at 1126 (quoting Atherton, 29 A.3d at 1209 ).