IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alvin S. Kanofsky, : Appellant :

:

v. :

: City of Bethlehem : No. 150 3 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: February 10 , 2017

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON , Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE COVEY FILED: May 17, 2017

Alvin S . Kanofsky (Kanofsky) appeals pro se from the Northampton

County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) August 30, 2016 order granting th e C ity

of Bethlehem’s (City) Motion t o Quash and Dismiss Kanofsky’s A ppeal (Motion)

and quashing and dismissing with prejudice Kanofsky’s appeal. The sole issue

before th is Court is whether the trial court properly quashed and dismissed with

p rejudice Kanofsky’s appeal. 1 After review, we affirm.

Kanofsky owns property at 30 East Third Street, Bethlehem

,
Pennsylvania (Property)

. On May 15, 2015, the City served upon Kanofsky a blight

notice and an order to eliminate the blight

- causing conditi ons for the Property

. In

response, Kanofsky requested a full hearing before the Blighted Property Review

1 Kanofsky’s “ QUESTIONS ASKED ” listed in h is brief incl u des eight questions , all of which

appear to present issues with regard to the underlying merits of the case. Kanofsky Br. at 3.

However, since Kanofsky is appealing from the order dismissing his appeal, that is the only issue

properly befo re the Court.2

Committee (BPRC), which was held on July 14, 2015. On July 28, 2015, the BPRC

determined that the P roperty was blighted. Kanofsky appealed from the BPRC’s

decision to the trial court

. On March 15, 2016, f ollowing a non

-

jury trial at which

Kanofsky failed to appear

, the trial court declared that the P roperty was blighted.

Kanofsky did not appeal from the trial court’s order

.

On April 14, 2016, the C ity’s Planning Commission certified to the

Redevelopment Authority that the Property wa s blighted. On April 19, 2016, the

BPRC certified to the Redevelopment Authority that the P roperty wa s blighted

. On

April 20, 2016, the BPRC notified Kanofsky of the b light certification. On May 19,

2016, Kanofsky appealed from the certification to the trial court

. On June 8, 2016,

the City filed its Motion. On August 30, 2016, the trial court heard oral argument

,
granted the City’s M otion, and quashed and dismissed with prejudice Kanofsky’s

appeal. Kanofsky appealed to this Court. 2

Section 12.1(e) of the Urban Redevelopment Law (Law) 3 provides:

The [BPRC] and the appropriate planning commission, upon making a determination that any property is blighted

within the t erms of this section, must certify said blighted property to the Redevelopment Authority, except that:

(1) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority unless it is vacant.

. . .

(2) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment

Auth ority unless the owner of the property or an agent designated by him for receipt of service of notices within the municipality has been served with notice of the determination that the property is blighted, together with an appropriate order to eliminate t he conditions

2 “ This Court ’ s standa rd of review of the trial court’ s order grant ing a motion to quash
plaintiff’ s appeal is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law, an abuse of

discretion, or a violation of constitutional rights .” R ay v. Brookville Area Sch . Dist., 19 A.3d 29, 31

n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).

3 Act of May 24, 1945

, P.L. 991, as amended, added by Section 2 of the Act of June 23,

1978

, P.L. 556

, 35 P.S. § 1712.1(e)

.3 causing the blight and notification that failure to do so may render the property subject to condemnation under [the
Law]

. The notice shall be served upon the owner or his agent in accord with the provisions of a local ordinance pertaining t o service of notice of determination of a public

nuisance. The owner or his agent shall have the right of appeal from the determination in the same manner as an appeal from the determination of public nuisance.

(3) No blighted property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority until the time period for appeal has expired and no appeal has been taken , or, if taken, the appeal has been disposed of, and the owner or his agent has failed to comply with the order of the responsible department or other o fficer or agency.

35 P.S. § 1712.1(e) (emphasis added)

. Similarly, Article 149.04(a) of the City

Ordinances states:

The [BPRC] and the Planning Commission, upon making a determination that any property is ‘ blighted ’

. . . , must certify said blighted prope rty to the Redevelopment Authority, except that:

(1) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority unless it is vacant.

(2) No property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority unless the owner of the property or an agent designate d by him for receipt of service of notices within the municipality has been served with notice of the determination that the property is blighted, together with an appropriate order to eliminate the conditions causing the blight and notification that failu re to do so may render the property subject to condemnation under this

ordinance. The notice shall be served upon the owner or his agent in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.

The owner or his agent shall have the right of appeal

from the d etermination in the same manner as an appeal

from the determination of public nuisance.

(3) No blighted property shall be certified to the Redevelopment Authority until the time period for appeal has expired and no appeal has been taken , or, if
taken, the appeal has been disposed of, and the owner or his4 agent has failed to comply with the order of the responsible department or other officer or agency.

Supplemental Reproduced Record (S.R.R.) at 24 (emphasis added). Article 149.06 of

the City Ordinances est ablishes the procedural requirements. With respect to the

BPRC hearing and appeals therefrom, the relevant provision s include :

(b) Hearing.

(1) The owner or his agent ha [s] the right to a full hearing

before the [BPRC]. . . .

(2) The owner or his agent have the opportunity to present all relevant evidence, to present witnesses, to cross

- examine any witnesses, to be represented by counsel, and to receive

a written opinion from the [BPRC] as to their findings and

basis of decision within forty

- five (45) d ays of the hearing

date.

(c) Appeals.

(1) The owner or his agent shall have the right of appeal

from the determination of the [BPRC] to the [trial court]. . .

.

(2) The owner or his agent will be given thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the with in opinion to file a written appeal with the [trial court].

S.R.R. at 26. Article s 149 .0 4 (a) and 149.06 of the City’s Ordinances track Section

12.1(e) of the Law. “ Both [Article 149 of the City’s O rdinances] and [Section

12.1(e) of the Law] distinguish [] the initial notice of blight, which is made appealable

for thirty days

, [from the] subsequent certification of blight which is not

appealable

. ” In re Condemnation by the Redevelopment Auth

. of the City of

Lancaster, 682 A.2d 1369 , 1371 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (emphasis added)

.

Here, it is uncontested that Kanofsky received the notice of blight and an

order to eliminate the blight

- causing conditions. Further, Kanofsky appealed to the

BPRC and received a full hearing. Thereafter, Kanofsky appealed from the B PRC’s5

decision to the trial court, wh ich also concluded that the Property was blighted.

B ecause the time period for appeal had expired and Kanofsky did not appeal from the

trial court’s order

, the BPRC’s blight certification to the Redevelopment Authority

was proper, 35 P.S. § 1712.1(e), and is not appealable. In re Condemnation by the

Redevelopment Auth. of the City of Lancaster

. Accordingly, the trial court properly

granted the City’s Motion and quashed and dismissed with prejudice Kanofsky’s

appeal.

For the above reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alvin S. Kanofsky, : Appellant :

:

v. :

: City of Bethlehem : No. 1 503 C.D. 2016

:

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17 th day of May , 201 7

, the Northampton County

Common Pleas Court’s August 30, 2016 order is affirmed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge