Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2014

Home

February 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin mon pleas). The trial court agreed with PPM's arguments and modified the Board's decision in a manner favorable to PPM. Thomas J. Bozek ("Bozek") was an adjacent landowner who had op- posed PPM's application and who had been given permission to intervene in PPM's appeal. Following the trial court's order, PPM learned that Bozek planned to appeal to the Commonwealth Court. PPM made a motion in the trial court for an appeal bond. Under § 1003-A(d) of Pennsylvania's Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC") (53 P.S.§ 11003-A(d)), if the appellants in a land -use dispute are "persons who are seeking to prevent a use or development of the land of another . . . the landowner whose use or development is in question may petition the court to order the appellants to post bond as a condition to proceeding with the appeal." PPM argued that Bozek's appeal fell within the parameters of § 1003- A(d) of the MPC because the appeal sought to prevent or limit the use or development of the land of another and was frivolous. The trial court granted PPM's motion and ordered Bozek to post a $250,000 bond as a condition of continuing with this appeal to the Com- monwealth Court, under MPC § 1003-A(d). PPM then asked the Commonwealth Court to quash Bozek's appeal because Bozek failed to appeal the bond order or post bond. A judge granted PPM's motion and quashed Bozek's appeal. On reconsideration, a three judge panel also granted PPM's motion to quash. Bozek appealed. Among other things, Bozek argued that the bond order was void ab initio (i.e., invalid from the outset) because PPM (not Bozek) was the appellant before the trial court. (Bozek had not been the appellant before the trial court, but was only the appellant before the Commonwealth Court.) As such, Bozek contended that PPM lacked the ability under the MPC to request an appeal bond in the first instance, and the trial court lacked the authority to require one. DECISION: Order of Commonwealth Court reversed; case remanded: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed with Bozek. It held that, in a proceeding where the land developer is the appellant before the common pleas court of a zoning board's decision, the MPC does not authorize the common pleas court to require an objector to post bond in connection with the objector's appeal to the Commonwealth Court of a final order of the common pleas court. In other words, here, because PPM was the appellant in the trial court, the MPC did not authorize the trial court to require Bozek to post bond in connection with his appeal to the Commonwealth Court of the trial court's final order under PPM's appeal. The court explained that it so held because: (1) § 1003-A(d) of the MPC primarily governs appeals to the common pleas court by an objector from a zoning board decision favorable to the developer; and (2) even if § 1003- A(d) authorized imposition of a bond in connection with an objector's fur- 10 ©2014 Thomson Reuters