Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Z.B. November 15, 1996 -- Page 5 supported the approval of Haigh's application. As required by law, the director considered the alternative permitted uses and found them either infeasible or worse for the deer and elk range than Haigh's proposal. Even if some of the uses the director found infeasible could have been implemented, the evidence supported the director's conclusion that they would require more intrusive fencing, land clearing and/or buildings than the mobile home. Zoning Violation -- Scrap yard operator fights $14,000 fine City of Erie v. Freitus, 681 A.2d 840 (Pennsylvania) 1996 Freitus was operating a scrap yard in the city of Erie, Pa. That use vio- lated the city's zoning ordinance. In 1.993, the city zoning officer investigated Freitus' operation. As the state Municipalities Planning Code required for enforcement of zoning ordi- nances, the officer sent Freitus a notice of zoning violation. Under the state code, someone who violated a zoning ordinance could be charged with penal- ties of up to $500 per day. Months later, the city sued Freitus based on the violation. After a hearing, the court held that Freitus violated the ordinance and entered a $500 judg- fnent against him. Freitus appealed to a higher-level court. That court affirmed the lower court's finding and charged Freitus with a $100 per day penalty starting April 25, 1995. The penalties were to continue accruing until Freitus complied with the ordinance. In September 1995, the court viewed the property and determined that Freitus violated its earlier order. The court granted the city a $14,000 judg- ment, composed of accumulated fines. Freitus appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Although the lower courts incorrectly considered whether Freitus was in violation at all, they properly assessed penalties against him. Therefore, their mistakes did not cause any harm and their judgments were affirmed. The only way Freitus could have challenged the notice of violation would have been through an .appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board. He should not have waited until the city sued him to try to defend against the claims. Once the city showed Freitus didn't appeal the notice to the board, the lower court had to find him guilty of the violation and could assess fines against him. Because Freitus produced no evidence th.~t he stopped violating the ordinance, the lower courts could impose fines of up to $500 for each day the violations continued. The $100-per-day fines for 140 days of continued violations were justified. Johnston v. Upper Macungie Township, 638 A.2d 408 (1994). Township of Maidencreek v. Stutzman, 642 A.2d 600 (1994).