Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

Page 6 -- March I0, 2006 Attorneys' Fees--Only municipality entitled to costs and attorneys' fees Private citizens fail to get same benefit Citation: Township of South Whitehall v. Karoly, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 992 CD. 2005 (2006) PENNSYLVANIA (01/27/06)-- Kamly owned a commercial property in the Town- ship of South Whitehall. Without regard to zoning ordnances, Karoly built a shed on the property and placed an unscreened dumpster next to the building. When Karoly failed to correct or appeal the zoning violations, the township SUed, and the court ml~d in its favor. One of those rulings charged Karoly almost $30,000 in municipal attorneji' fees for the action. KaroIy appealed, arguing it was a constitutional violation to allow attor- neys' fees for municipalities, but not for citizens. DECISION: Affirmed- Local law author/zed the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs by a munici- pality, but not by a prevailing citizen, in zoning enforcement actions. A statute was considered valid unless it clearly violated the Constitution. Consequently, a statute was sustained unless it was patently arbitrary and bore no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. The ordinance author/zing municipal attorneys' fees and costs in an en- forcement action was designed to promo[e the early resolution of zoning viola- tions, which was obviously a legitimate state interest. Attorneys' fees and costs were awarded to a municipality only after the alleged violator failed to cure the violation or failed to appeal to the appropriate municipal body. Therefore, the provisions acted to promote a legitimate state interest when the township initiated an enforcement proceeding to ensure compliance with a zoning ordinance so the public was protected. Ultimately, the provisions were rationally related to a legitimate state interest. see also: Borough of Bradford Woods v. Platt& 799 A.2d 984 (2002). Restrictive Covenants -- County zoning code changes to allow RVs in manufactured home subdivisions Planned aviation community resident sues to keep out R Vs Citation: Powell u Washburn, Supreme Court of Arizon~ No. CV-OS-O186-PR (2006) ARIZONA (01/05/06) -- Indian Hills AL-park, an aviation-related planned com- munity was subject to a series of restrictive covenants. The covenants incorporated the focal zoning code, which zoned the park as a manufactured home subdivision. However, under the covenants, only manufactured and mobile homes, hangar-houses (homes made to look like air- plane hangers), and constructed homes were allowed. in 1996, the cotmry amended the zoning ordinance to permit the use of RVs @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reprorJuction is prombite~. For more information please carl (617) 542~q048. 104