stating that zoning hearing boards and zoning boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies performing fact-finding and deliberative functions in a manner similar to a court and that “[t]he board may deliberate in private, but evidence must be received, and official action must be taken and announced in public session” (quoting Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 22:25 (3d ed.1986))
How later courts described this case
- stating that zoning hearing boards and zoning boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies performing fact-finding and deliberative functions in a manner similar to a court and that “[t]he board may deliberate in private, but evidence must be received, and official action must be taken and announced in public session” (quoting Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 22:25 (3d ed.1986))
- noting that 65 Pa.C.S. § 710.1(b) “makes invalidation unavailable as a remedy where the meeting's only violation is a failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for comment by residents and taxpayers”
- stating no reason appears why process of quasi-judicial decision-making is any less deserving of protection than judicial or administrative processes
- observing that plaintiffs alleging a Sunshine Act violation bear the burden of proof due to the presumption of regularity and legality attaching to local agency proceedings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the majority’s decision to reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court. I write separately to emphasize that more specifically and respectfully, I join the majority opinion insofar as it concludes that the Upper Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board) is a quasi-judicial body; that the Board held an executive session within the meaning of Section 708(5) of the Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 708(5), when it engaged in quasi-judicial deliberations during its recess; and that the evidence of record did not support the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that the Board took unlawful official action during that recess.
Justices CASTILLE and NIGRO join this concurring opinion.