The case concerned Misingwa Land Trust's appeal from the denial of a real estate tax exemption for seven parcels of land in Beaver County, which the trust acquired for conservation, open space preservation, and historical remediation tied to American Indian cultures. The trial court rejected the exemption, concluding that the nonprofit did not qualify as a purely public charity under Article VIII, Section 2(a)(v) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that the trial court misapplied the constitutional standards for public charity status and that the record was incomplete regarding public availability of the properties and dissemination of information about them. The court therefore vacated the trial court's orders and remanded for additional evidence and a new determination on both the constitutional and statutory requirements under the Consolidated County Assessment Law.
The case involved Michael Kelly appealing the grant of a zoning variance to Union United Methodist Church by the Haverford Township Zoning Hearing Board, allowing the church to install amber-colored LED lights in its sign instead of the white lights mandated by the township's zoning ordinance. The trial court denied the appeal, ruling it untimely but alternatively upholding the variance on the merits. On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed, holding that although the initial appeal was premature, it was cured by a supplemental filing, and that the variance was properly granted as a dimensional variance because the church demonstrated unnecessary hardship and the amber lights were less impactful than permitted white lights. The court concluded that the Zoning Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its decision conformed to the law.
In this case, inmate Derrick King appealed the trial court's dismissal of his motion to postpone payment of fines and costs imposed as part of his 2018 sentence for persons not to possess firearms, arguing that the sentencing court failed to conduct an ability-to-pay hearing as required by 42 Pa. C.S. §9726(c). The trial court had dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, viewing it as a challenge to Act 84 deductions from his inmate account by the Department of Corrections, which falls under the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that King's motion, when read liberally, challenged the legality of the underlying sentence rather than the method of collection, citing precedent that such challenges implicate the sentence's validity and belong in the court of common pleas. The court therefore vacated the trial court's order and remanded the matter for disposition on the merits.
Stephen Hardnock petitioned for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's denial of his claim for benefits after he resigned from his position as a full-time flex supervisor at Sheetz Inc. The Board affirmed the referee's decision that Hardnock was ineligible under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law because he voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling reason. Hardnock had sustained a head injury at work, was placed on medical leave, and later resigned citing relocation that placed employer's stores outside commuting distance, but he did not attend the referee hearing, request a transfer, or present evidence of efforts to remain employed. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the record showed continuing work was available and that transportation inconvenience does not justify a voluntary quit absent proof of an insurmountable barrier despite reasonable efforts to remedy it.
Derrick King, an inmate convicted of aggravated assault, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his motion to postpone payment of fines and costs for lack of jurisdiction. King sought to halt Act 84 deductions from his inmate account, arguing that the sentencing court imposed the financial obligations without first determining his ability to pay as required by 42 Pa.C.S. §9726 and Commonwealth v. Ford. The trial court viewed the challenge as concerning the method of collection under Act 84 and thus outside its jurisdiction. The Commonwealth Court held that King's motion contested the validity of the underlying sentence rather than the collection process, meaning the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore vacated the dismissal and remanded for a merits decision.
This case involved objectors Scott E. and Kathryn A. MacDonald appealing a trial court order that upheld the Lower Makefield Township Zoning Hearing Board's grant of four dimensional variances to landowners Gabriel Deck and Alexandra Calukovic-Deck. The variances allowed construction of a single-family home on two adjoining vacant lots subject to floodplain, wetland, easement, and access restrictions under the township zoning ordinance, with conditions requiring a floodplain survey and township approval of the stormwater management plan. The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding that the zoning board did not abuse its discretion or improperly delegate authority, as the conditions ensured compliance with resource protection rules and addressed concerns about impervious surface coverage and storm events on the limited buildable area. The court rejected arguments that the variances violated ordinance standards for setbacks, disturbances, and driveway width, finding the board's decision supported by evidence of unique site constraints.