Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Industrial Terminal & Salvage Co. v. Borough of Industry
Citations: 140 Pa. Commw. 115; 591 A.2d 782; 1991 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 291Docket: No. 593 C.D. 1990
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; May 22, 1991; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Paul O. Walton, Sr. (Appellant) appeals a decision from the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, which denied his Petition for Leave to Intervene in an appeal concerning the vacation of seven streets in the Borough of Industry. The streets' vacation was initially petitioned by Industry Terminal and Salvage Company, and after a public hearing, the Borough council unanimously denied the request. Industry then appealed this decision, prompting the Borough's solicitor to respond. Walton, a member of the Borough council and a resident, sought to intervene, arguing that his interests—such as access to his property, fishing access to the Ohio River, and avoiding further litigation to establish his rights—were not adequately represented by the council. He expressed concerns that the majority of the council might not vigorously defend the appeal due to cost considerations. The trial court ultimately denied his petition, stating his interests were sufficiently represented. Walton's appeal questions whether this denial constituted an abuse of discretion. The document notes that, as this is a statutory appeal under The Borough Code, standard civil procedure rules are not applicable, rendering Walton's petition to intervene an inappropriate means of participating in the litigation. Additionally, it outlines the procedural requirements under Section 1741 of The Borough Code regarding street vacation, emphasizing the necessary consents and notifications to affected property owners. Any interested party may petition for a hearing within a forty-day period following the enactment of an ordinance, which stays the ordinance's effective date until the council holds the hearing and acts on the petition. If the council's action is unsatisfactory, an aggrieved party may appeal to the court of common pleas within thirty days. To qualify as an aggrieved party under the Borough Code, one must demonstrate a direct, substantial, immediate, and pecuniary interest in the matter. The relevant statute, Section 1744 of The Borough Code, states that when a street is vacated, public rights cease, but private rights of abutting property owners are unaffected. The appellant does not own property adjacent to the vacated streets and thus cannot claim an aggrieved status, as their interests are considered common to all citizens rather than direct. The legislature has entrusted the protection of public interests to the Borough. Consequently, the appellant lacked standing to appeal, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's order. The order, dated May 22, 1991, is confirmed despite procedural errors, as there are sufficient independent grounds for affirmation.