commonwealth of pennsyl,vania - The Pennsylvania General ...

1978. LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL-HOUSE 2849
SENATOR LEWIS. 1,OCALGOVERNMENT. IN SENATE, RE-
REPORTEL) AS AMENDED. JUNE 1:1,1978.
An Art
I'roc,.c,ling5-"'
(4) The filing of an appeal in court under this section, shall
amending the act of July 31. 1968 (P. L. 8O.5. NO. 247). en- not stay the action appealed from hut the appellants may pet]titled,
as amended, "An act to empower cities of the second tion the court having jurisdiction of zoning appeals for a stay.
class A, and third class, boroughs, incorporated towns: town- If the appellants are persons who are seeking to prevent a use
ships of the first and second classes ~ncludlng those wlthln a or development of the landof another-whethher or notfifa stay
county of the serond class and counties of the second class A
IS
through eighth classes, individually or jointly, to plan therr
sought the landowner
development and to govern the same by zonlng, suhdiv~slon whose use or development is in question may petition the court
and land development ordinances, planned residential dr- to order the appellants to post hond as a condition to
velopment and other ordinances, by official maps, hy the res- proceeding with the appeal. AFTER THE PETITION IS PREervation
of certain land for future public purpose and by the SENTED THE CoURT SHALL HOLD A I~EARING TO
acquisition of such land; providing for the establishment of
planning commissions, planning departments, planning com- DETERMINE IF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL IS FRIVOmittees
and zoning hearing boards, authorizing them to LOUS AND IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELAY. AT THE
charge fees, make inspections and hold public hearings;
providing for appropriations, appeals to courts and penalties HEARING - EVIDENCE MAY BE PRESENTED ON THE
for violations; and repealing acts and parts of acts," further MERITS OF THE CASE. AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL
providing for a stay of proceedings.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED, IF THE COURT DETERMINES
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
hereby enacts as follows:
THAT THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND IS FOR THE PUR-
SECTION 1. SECTION 916. ACT OF JULY 31, 1968 (P. L. POSE OF DELAY IT SHALL GRANT THE PETITION. THE
805. NO. 2471, KNOWN AS THE "PENNSYLVANIA MUNICI-
PALITIES PLANNING CODE," IS AMENDED TO READ:
RIGHT TO PETITION THE COURT TO ORDER THE APPEL.
SECTION 916. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS.-UPON FILING LANTS TO POST BOND MAY BE WAIVED BY THE
OF ANY PROCEEDING REFERRED TO IN SECTION 914 APPELLEE BUT SUCH WAIVER MAY BE REVOKED BY
AND DURING ITS PENDENCY BEFORE THE BOARD ALL
LAND DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO ANY CHAL. HIM IF AN APPEAL IS TAKEN FROM A FINAL DECISION
LENGED ORDINANCE, ORDER OR APPROVAL OF THE OF THE COURT. The question [whether or not such petition
ZONING OFFICER OR OF ANY AGENCY OR BODY, AND
ALL OFFICIAL ACTION THEREUNDER SHALL BE
should he granted and] -- OF the amount of the bnd shall he
STAYED UNLESS THE ZONING OFFICER OR ANY OTHER within the sounddiscretion of the court.
APPROPRIATE AGENCY OR BODY CERTIFIES TO THE Section% 3. This act shall takeeffect immediately.
BOARD FACTS INDICATING THAT SUCH STAY WOULD
CAUSE IMMINENT PERIL TO LIFE OR PROPERTY, IN thequestion,
WHICH CASE THE DEVELOPMENT OR OFFICIAL ACTION
SHALL NOT BE STAYED OTHERWISE THAN BY A RE. Will the House concur in Senate amendments?
STRAINING ORDER WHICH MAY BE GRANTED BY THE
BOARD OR BY THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OF The SPEAKER. On page 14, HB 263, PN 3413. on con-
ZONING APPEALS ON PETITION AFTER NOTICE TO THE currence in Senate amendments, the Chair recognizes the
~~~~G$$~~C~~O!~~{~~&~~R",~~l$$~$~~~$~f~
gentleman, Mr. Zearfoss, for a brief explanation.
PRELIMINARY OR FINAL, HAS BEEN DULY APPROVED Mr. ZEARFOSS. Mr. Speaker, under present law, in a zoning
AND PROCEEDINGS DESIGNED TO REVERSE OR LIMIT appeal case, a bond may be required by the court of common
THE APPROVAL ARE FILED WITH THE BOARD BY
pleas in any event, and the only hearing that is held on that
PERSONS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT, THE AP-
PLICANT MAY PETITION THE COURT HAVING JURIS. petition for the bond is as to how much is it going to cost for the
DICTION OF ZONING APPEALS TO ORDER SUCH PER- delay occasioned by the appeal. The bill that the House passed
'ONS 'OST AS A CONDIT1ON
provided that there would he no bond required except in the
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BOARD. AFTER THE
cases where the appellant non-landowner had requested and re-
PETITION IS PRESENTED THE COURT SHALL HOLD A
ceived a stay of construction by the court of common pleas,
IF THE OF THE
which was another step. The builders and the developers of the
PEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND IS THE OF DE-
Commonwealth pointed out that that was a pretty harsh posi-
LAY' AT THE MAY BE PRESENTED
tion in that in every event where there is an appeal taken, it
ON THE OF THE CASE. AFTER CONSIDERAT1ON
amounts to a stay, whether one is requested of the court or not,
OF ALL IF THE DETER- because the builder cannot go ahead with his project as long as
THAT THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS AND IS the project is in litigation. The hill was brought up in the Sen-
THE OF DELAY IT SHALL GRANT THE PEE ate as passed in the House and defeated because of the objec-
TION. THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE COURT TO ORDER tions by developers,
THE APPELLANTS TO POST BOND MAY BE WAIVED BY We then considered what kinds of amendments would he a
THE APPELLEE BUT SUCH WAIVER MAY BE REVOKED good compromise, and the bill that we have before us today is a
BY HIM IF AN APPEAL IS TAKEN FROM A FINAL DECI- result of that compromise. What the Senate amendments do is
SION OF THE COURT. THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT say that a bond may he required by the court in any event
SUCH PETITION SHOULD BE GRANTED AND THE where, after a hearing, it is determined that the appeal is frivo-
OF THE SHALL BE THE lous and for purposes of delay, but that is the only situation
DISCRETION OF THE COURT.
section+- 2, subsection (4) of 108--' . . where the court may order the appellant to post the hond, and
lllCV
. . , . .
the amendments go further and require that the court consider
. .