Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 2 --May 25, 2005 Immunity m Quarry operator sues zoning officials in their individual capacities Officials claim they are entitled to absolute immunity Citation: Lonzetta Trucking and Excavating Company v. Schan, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-2758 (2005) The 3rd U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. PENNSYLVANIA (03/31/05) -- Lonzetta Trucking and Excavating Company operated a quarry in Hazle Townskip. The quarry was located in an area zoned as an M-1 Mining District. Lonzetta obtained a Non-Coal Surface Ivlining Permit from the Pennsylva- nia Department of Environmental Protection. At the same time, it applied fora building and zoning permit to operate a mobile crusher and screening plant. When the permit was denied, the zoning board ordered Lonzetta to cease quar- wing operations. Lonzetta sued, and the court found the zonin:~:board h(ad acted improperly in trying to regulate Lonzetta's quarry despite the permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. After winning the initial court battle, Lonzetta sued the zoning officials in their individual and official capacities, claiming they had violated its due pro- cess rights. The court ruled in its favor. The zoning officials appealed, claiming they were entitled to absolute im- munity in their individual capacitie, s. DECISION: Returned'to the lower court. The lower court had to determine whether the zoning officials were actually performing quasi-judicial functions before it could decide whether the zoning officials were entitled to absoluteimmunity in their individual capacities. In assessing whether absolute immunity ShoUld be extended, Courts used a functional approach that looked at the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. There were six characteristics that assisted this inquiry: 1) the need to assure that the individual could perform Ns or her functions without harass- ment and intimidation, 2) the presence of safeguards that reduced the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct, 3) insulation from political influence, 4) the importance of precedent, 5) the' adversarial nature of the process, and-6) the ability to correct an error on appeal. The board argued the six-factor test favored extending absolute immu- nity because if zoning officials were subject to litigation every time 'they denied a permit, it would be difficult to find people to serve on.zgning boards. Furthermore, since board members were appointed, they were 86 © 2005 Quinian Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.