Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.B. <br /> <br />September 10,2004 - Page 3 <br /> <br />from the time the tenants first heard or the necessity of leaving the premises, they <br />had four months to depart. Their claimed property interest, however, entitled them <br />[0 only 3D additional days of tenancy after the notification oflease termination. <br />Ultimatel y, the actions or [he board could not ha ve deprived the tenants or <br />any property imerest to remain on the premises. In fact, the board ruling gave <br />the tenants more notice of termination than they would otherwise have been <br />entitkd. Accordingly, there could not have been an unconstitutional taking of <br />a protected property interest. <br />see aLw: Prtleo v. Zoning Hean'ng Board ofSchuyllcill Toyvnship. 722 A2d 789 (1999). <br />see also: Shields v. Zucwrini, 254 F3d 476 (2001). <br /> <br />. Due Process - ZOrllJ1g officer and landowner quit friendship <br />loning ojjzcer cites landowner for three different zoning violations <br />Citation: Siegmond v. Fedor. U.S District Court for the !'vfiddle District of <br />Pennsylvania. No. 3:CI/-01-2266 (2004) <br /> <br />PENNSYLVANIA (06129104) - Fedor, the zoning officer for the borough or <br />Parryville cited Siegmond three times for various zoning violations. <br />The first two violations involved a high fence and an allegedly dangerous <br />concrete wall. The third involved a pool shed that was built without the neces- <br />sary permits. <br />Fedor and Siegmond had once been friends. However, when Siegmond <br />insulted and berated fedor's father over a local zon.ing issue, Fedor stopped <br />"having anything to do with Siegmond." <br />Siegmond sued, arguing his due process rights were being violated by <br />Fedor's biased enforcement on his property. <br />DECISION: Judgment in favor of Fedor. <br />Fedor's actions failed to rise to the level of egregiousness required to shock <br />the conscience and violate due process rights. <br />At most, the evidence suggested Fedor may have had an improper motive, <br />based nn a deterioration in the personal relationship between Siegmond and <br />Fedor, In taking enforcement action. However, improper motive resulting from <br />personal J.DlillUS was insufficient in itself to be conscience shocking. <br />[mportantly, the challenged decisions were plainly related to rational land <br />use goals. All three incidents were based OIl alleged violation of the zoning <br />,)rciinance or the e:ustence of a structure [hat purportedly endangered the wel- <br />tare ;)t' persons. There was no evidence the cited provisions of the zoning <br />urdinance ur [he protection of public welfare were utilized solely to single out <br />S It''2'illonJ 1)[ wer,= lrrational. <br />.\lthough theenforcemenc actions could h;lve been b;lseci on a mixture of <br />l\:~~l::iIna[c JIlG Lllcgltima[c motivcs1 such mixed motives ~Nere not sufficient to <br /> <br />';'<-'1~""""'~': -1 '.," "'I., ri.' ..., I'-T' -l1i .T' ~'..r_::\ ,-j ..... ."'\.......::....,.~ <br />_ .",....:[1.,),. _, ':\.:"L,,)L .j, )'-'O.')lJ.nLl'I'~ clue 1J['-,I..:",:).). <br /> <br />~; ~~~:~'-..1. :[;HI:;:-Ji:'~CllSrrin~ :.f'~UC. .:.;ny (8QrCCUC~lon ::3 oronioltec. ;=:)[ ~Tiore :nrcrmalion ,JleaS2 '~2.il :6"17) 342-~JOJ.8. <br /> <br />107 <br />