18 A.3d 354
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Takacs appeals two trial court orders related to a zoning appeal involving St. Clair Resort Development's building permit in the Borough's Commercial-Recreational district.
- The ZHB granted a building permit for a multi-family dwelling; Takacs, adjoining property owner, challenged setbacks and Article XII, and the ZHB denied relief, leading to a trial court appeal.
- The trial court affirmed the ZHB decision and later ordered Takacs to post a $380,000 appeal bond under §1003-A of the MPC, deeming the appeal frivolous.
- The Developer moved to quash Takacs' appeals: in 2616 C.D. 2009 for failure to post the bond, and in 365 C.D. 2010 arguing bond order was interlocutory.
- The court ultimately quashed 2616 C.D. 2009 for failure to post bond and affirmed the bond order in 365 C.D. 2010, while denying the quash motion for 365 C.D. 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 365 C.D. 2010 bond order was interlocutory | Takacs argues bond order is interlocutory and not appealable. | Developer contends the order ancillary to the appeal on final disposition can be appealed as a final order. | Bond order is final/appealable; interlocutory only if issued before final disposition. |
| Whether the trial court properly imposed a $380,000 bond without a hearing | Takacs asserts no hearing and seeks a different basis for amount. | Developer cites discretionary amount and no requirement for a hearing when familiar with merits. | No hearing required; amount within the court's discretion supported by record evidence. |
| Whether Takacs' appeal was frivolous on the setbacks issue | Takacs contends the setback analysis could show merit. | ZHB's credibility findings and evidence show no likelihood of success on setback. | Appeal on setback issue was frivolous; supported by substantial evidence and close review of findings. |
| Whether Takacs' Article XII (Planned Residential Community) issue was frivolous | Takacs asserts Article XII denial had merit. | ZHB and Borough Council jurisdiction and record support no meritorious Article XII claim. | Appeal on Article XII issue frivolous; no likely success on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- C.A.N.D.L.E. v. Board of Commissioners, 502 A.2d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (bond posting and frivolousness inquiry in land-use appeals; interlocutory nature of bond order)
- Rickert v. Latimore Township, 960 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (frivolousness standard and handling of bonds in land-use appeals)