Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 15 Court of Common Pleas noted that Schmader had failed to argue that he suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of due process. The Court of Common Pleas found that he appeal period expired on April 30, 2012, and that therefore Schmader's appeal was untimely. Schmader appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Board was required to notify Schmader of the date of commencement of the appeal period. In so holding, the court rejected the Court of Common Pleas' implicit holding that the amendment to § 1002-A relieved an agency of its obliga- tion to inform a party of the mailing date or otherwise notify a party of the commencement of the appeal period. Rather, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania concluded that the amendment to § 1002-A could "not be construed to completely eradicate an agency's obligation to notify a party of the date of mailing, or in some fashion of the date the appeal period begins." The court affirmed previous judicial decision that it would be "manifestly unjust" to dismiss an appeal where the agency failed to infoini the recipient of the mailing date. The court reaffirmed that when the ap- peal period is triggered by administrative action, the administrative agency has a duty to provide the recipient information essential to calculating the appeal period. Here, whether the mailing date of the Board's Decision triggered the start of Schmader's appeal period depended on whether, consistent with the applicable statute, the notice sufficiently infoiiued Schmader of the starting date of the appeal period so that Schmader had all the information needed to timely exercise his appeal rights, said the court. Since the Board failed to provide notice to Schmader of the date of the mailing of the Board's Decision, the court concluded that Schmader was justified in fil- ing his appeal within 30 days of receipt of the Board's Decision. See also: Schmidt v. Com., 495 Pa. 238, 433 A.2d 456 (1981). See also: Hanna v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 62 Pa. Commw. 620, 437 A.2d 115 (1981). Zoning News from Around the Nation KENTUCKY The City of Owensboro is considering a new zoning ordinance that would create an entertainment district in its downtown area. Reportedly, the ordinance has been proposed in order to "protect the downtown area from becoming dry if there were a wet -dry election in that precinct." Source: 14 News; www.14news.com © 2013 Thomson Reuters 11