Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-7461 civil termROBERT H. BARRETT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF APPELLANT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BOROUGH OF CARLISLE, APPELLEE 99-7461 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925(a) Bayley, J., March 1, 2000:-- On October 26, 1999, the Code Department of the Borough of Carlisle, pursuant to Section PM-108.0 of the Borough Property Maintenance Code, condemned four properties in the Borough owned by Robert H. Barrett: 29 South East Street, 35 South Bedford Street, 37 South Bedford Street and 136 East High Street. Each property was condemned because of multiple continuing BOCA Code violations. Each order advised Barrett that he had a right of appeal within ten days to the Board of Appeals of the Borough of Carlisle. Notwithstanding, on December 13, 1999, Barrett filed the within "Local Agency Law Appeal" in this court from four orders of the code enforcement officer. The Borough of Carlisle filed a motion to quash the appeal. An order was entered on January 13, 2000, quashing the appeal, with the following statement: Any appeal by Robert H. Barrett of the four orders issued by the Codes Department of the Borough of Carlisle was to the Board of Appeals of the Borough of Carlisle, not this court. The procedure is no different than if a Borough Zoning Officer had issued an order from which an appeal would 99-7461 CIVIL TERM be to the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Carlisle. It is the decisions of the Board of Appeals or a Zoning Hearing Board that are appealable to a Court of Common Pleas. Barrett filed a direct appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from that order. Chapter 5 Section 5.7 of the Code of the Borough of Carlisle, provides: Any person aggrieved by a decision of any borough official or body who or which is responsible for the enforcement of the code or ordinances which are the subject of this chapter shall file a written notice of appeal with the Board of Appeals within ten (10) days after the rendering of such decision. The Board of Appeals is a local agency ordained by the Borough of Carlisle to hear appeals of Borough determinations and to hold hearings under the Pennsylvania Local Agency Law 2 Pa.C.S. Section 101 et seq. The legislature has provided at 2 Pa.C.S. Section 752: Any person aggrieved by an adjudication of a local agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure.). The definition of "Local agency" at 2 Pa.C.S. Section 101 is "A government agency other than a Commonwealth agency." The Common Pleas Court is vested with jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of local administrative agencies by the Judicial Code at 42 Pa.C.S. Section 933(a)(2). Airo Die Casting, Inc. v. Westmoreland County Board of Assessment Appeals, 706 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Commw. 1998). In the case sub judice, it is a direct appeal from an order of a Local Agency, the Board of Appeals of the Borough of Carlisle, that lies in this court. We have no jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from the four orders issued by the Borough code enforcement officer on October 26, 1999, as that officer is not a Local Agency. -2- 99-7461 CIVIL TERM .~.~. ..... ~---"~y~__ (DATE) g . y ~y,J. ~. Edward Schorpp, Esquire For Appellee Robert Barrett, Pro se 136 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 :saa -3- IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT H. BARRETT, : Appellant : v. No. 371 C.D. 2000 SUBMITTED: May 12, 2000 BOROUGH OF CARLISLE : BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE WILLIAM J. LEDERER, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE LEDERER FILED: August 4, 2000 The issue presented is whether the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (trial court) erred by holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of Robert H. Barrett (Appellant) from four orders issued by the Code Department of the Borough of Carlisle (Code Department). We hold that by not filing an appeal with the Board of Appeals of the Borough of Carlisle (Board of Appeals), Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court. The relevant facts of this case are as follows. On October 26, 1999, the Code Department, pursuant to the Borough Property Maintenance Code, condemned four properties in the Borough of Carlisle owned by Appellant. The orders were sent by one certified mailing, return receipt requested, to Appellant at the Cumberland County Prison where he was incarcerated. Prison authorities filed an appeal with the Board of Appeals. Instead, on December 13, 1999, Appellant filed an appeal with the trial court? Since Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies or file a timely appeal, the trial court correctly held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed. WILLIAM J. LEDERER, Senior Judge Judge Leadbetter concurs in the result only. (continued...) of the Borough determinations and to hold heatings under Pennsylvania Local Agency Law 2 Pa. C.S. Section 101 et seq. 3 Appellant did not even file his appeal within the thirty (30) days as set forth in Section 5571 (B) of the Pennsylvania Judicial Code. 42 Pa. C.S. {}5571 (B) provides: (B) Other courts.-- Except as provided in subsections (a) and (c) [not applicable here], an appeal from a tribunal or other governmental unit to court or from a court to an appellate court must be commenced within 30 days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken, in the case of an interlocutory or final order. 42 Pa. C.S. §5571(B).