• Disclaimer
  
• Proposed Legislation
  
• State Statutes
  
• State Statutes Referenced in MPC
  
• Other State Statutes
  
• Land Use Case Law - Court Rulings

Appellant has No Right to a Jury Trial on Appeal of Enforcement Action; Notice of Zoning Ordinance Violation Must be Reasonably Specific

Township of Lower Milford v. Britt, 799 A.2d 965

Cross Reference - MPC Section 616.1

In this case, the Commonwealth Court examined a municipality's notice to a landowner of a zoning ordinance violation which lead to an enforcement action before a district justice. The notice was found to sufficiently specify the violation. The notice included a description of the zoning ordinance requirements that were not met by the property owner and a citation to the zoning ordinance provisions violated, as required by MPC § 616.1 (c)

Over the years, the parties had participated in lengthy litigation and successive appeals arising out of the property owner's operation of a trash hauling business. Ultimately, the appellate court ruled that the activity violated the municipality's zoning ordinance because it operated on a parcel smaller than 10 acres. The municipality then sought enforcement of its zoning ordinance. The property owner was fined by a district justice. The fine was upheld by a trial court in a non jury trial.

On review, the Commonwealth Court found that the notice advised the property owner of the improper "industrial activity" in violation of the specific section of the ordinance that permitted an industrial use only as a special exception and only on a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The court examined the zoning ordinance and held that "industrial use" is a term broad enough in scope to encompass the property owner's trash hauling business but specific enough to support a prosecution for violation thereof.

The court also found that the appellant had no right to a jury trial inasmuch as the MPC does not provide a statutory right to a jury trial.

DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.

Back to Top