Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, ,,>--\ <br />,( I <br /> <br />,() <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />{ ) <br />\ , <br />':.....-"" <br /> <br />January 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.2 <br /> <br />board's decision would be deemed arbitrary and capricious only if <br />it was "patently unreasonable." <br />, In his appeal, Schmoll challenged the board's construction of the <br />zoning ordinance. However, an 'agency's construction of its own <br />ordinance was entitled to deference. The court, in reviewing the in- <br />terpretation of an ordinance, used the plain and express language <br />in the ordinance "to determine, give effect to, and implement the <br />intent of the enacting body." <br />Schmoll's primary argument was that the board erroneously <br />concluded that Dines' property was a corner lot based on the <br />fact that Glenwood Beach Trail was not a dedicated street. While <br />the appeals court found that this claim was not contested by <br />the town, it found that it was reasonable to consider Glenwood <br />Beach trail a "public right of way." The residents whose land <br />abutted the road in question used it to gain access to their homes, <br />which created a public interest. <br />Because the board's decision was reasonable, the appeals court <br />upheld the decision of the lower court. <br /> <br />Attorneys Fees-Commission members seek fees and <br />costs after judgment granted in protracted legal battle <br /> <br />Argue judgment, demonstrated property owner's claims <br />were frivolous <br /> <br />Citation: Dotzel v. Ashbridge, 2007 WL 4414712 (M.D. Pa. 2007) <br /> <br />PENNSYLVANIA (12/H/07)-Dotzel owned property in Salem <br />Township that he hoped to use for a quarry. To that end, he ap- <br />plied for a permit, but the permit was denied. <br />Dotzel alleged that the township's refusal to provide the permit <br />was motivated by "self dealing," and that zoning officials improp- <br />erly required him to meet conditions unnecessary under state and <br />local law. Dotzel challenged the denial in court, which eventually <br />reversed the township's decision. <br />. Dotzel then brought a case in federal court, raising various <br />constitutional claims, including violations of the First and 14th <br />Amendments. After many appeals, the only claim left undecided <br />was whether individual members of the township planning com- <br />mission (collectively, the defendants) were entitled to "absolute im- <br />munity" for their individual acts. <br />The court concluded that, to prevail on a due process claim <br />related to a zoning decision, Dotzel had to demonstrate that the <br />defendants engaged in behavior which "shocked the conscience." <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />135 <br />