Salada v. Commonwealth

627 A.2d 261, 156 Pa. Commw. 325, 1993 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 365
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 18, 1993
DocketNo. 151 and 152 C.D. 1992
StatusPublished

This text of 627 A.2d 261 (Salada v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Salada v. Commonwealth, 627 A.2d 261, 156 Pa. Commw. 325, 1993 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 365 (Pa. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

KELLEY, Judge.

Richard Salada and Stephanie Salada (Saladas) appeal from orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) denying their post-verdict motions and adjudging them each guilty of violating an Allegheny County Health Department (Health Department) regulation.

The Saladas are the owners of a parcel of property in Marshall Township, Allegheny County. A district justice found each of them guilty of violating Health Department regulation, Article XIV, Sewage Disposal, section 1404.6, which requires the owners of property to connect with an accessible public sewer system. They sought a trial de novo in the trial court and that trial was held on April 4, 1990.

Without either Richard or Stephanie Salada being present, the trial court, by order of August 3, 1990, found each of them guilty and sentenced each to pay a fine of $100.00. After the Saladas received notification of the guilty verdicts, they filed [327]*327post-verdict motions. Following oral argument, the trial court on October 26, 1990, denied the post-verdict motions. The Saladas appealed to this court on November 11, 1990.

After oral argument, this court per memorandum opinion and order dated November 26, 1991, vacated the Saladas’ sentences and remanded each case back to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. 143 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 697, 599 A.2d 1024. On December 17, 1991, the trial court resentenced the Saladas to each pay an increased fíne of $300.00 and costs. On January 14, 1992, the Saladas filed a timely appeal of the trial court’s orders with this court. By order of this court, the appeals were consolidated on January 24, 1992.

The Saladas raise the following issues on appeal:

1. Whether the Health Department has standing to bring this action;
2. Whether the Health Department’s rules and regulations as to the tap-ins and exceptions thereto are void for vagueness and, therefore, unconstitutional;
3. Whether Marshall Township Ordinance 140, passed pursuant to the Second Class Township Code, has been preempted by the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act;
4. Whether the rules and regulations of the Health Department are preempted by the Second Class Township Municipal Code;
5. Whether the repeal of Ordinance 140 affects the rights of the Saladas already established under the Special Available For Use Permit issued to them; and
6. Whether the record of the administrative hearings of the Health Department are relevant and material.

STANDING

The Saladas argue that the Health Department lacks standing to bring this action under the Pennsylvania Sewage [328]*328Facilities Act1 or otherwise, since jurisdiction in the area of sewer tap-in enforcement is clearly delegated to Marshall Township. We disagree.

The Health Department has standing to bring this action against the Saladas under the Local Health Administration Law.2 Section 5 of the Local Health Administration Law authorizes the creation of county health departments such as the Allegheny County Health Department. 16 P.S. § 12005.

Pursuant to an established county health department’s powers and duties, it is mandated by the Local Health Administration Law that the county health departments make and enforce such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health. 16 P.S. § 12010. This rule making power conferred upon an established county health department is exercised by the county board of health by formulating rules and regulations for the prevention of disease, for the prevention and removal of conditions which constitute a menace to health, and for the promotion and preservation of the public health generally. 16 P.S. § 12011.

Accordingly, under the Local Health Administration Law, the Health Department had the authority to promulgate valid regulations to protect the public health, such as the regulation of which the Saladas were found guilty by the trial court. The Health Department’s regulation, Article XIV, Sewage Disposal, section 1404.6, provides as follows:

It shall be unlawful to continue the use of a private system on any piece or parcel of ground abutting on, contiguous to, or reasonably accessible to any public sewer. The Director shall issue notices giving up to ninety (90) days to discontinue the use of such private system and to connect to a public sewer.

[329]*329Under section 13, the jurisdiction of an established county health department extends to all townships of the second class, such as Marshall Township. 16 P.S. § 12013. It shall be a summary offense for any person who violates any of the rules or regulations of a county health department with fines ranging from $30.00 to $300.00 if convicted of a violation. 16 P.S. § 12027. Therefore, the Health Department had the authority to pursue a criminal action against the Saladas for their failure to connect to any public sewer abutting on, contiguous to, or reasonably accessible to their property.

However, the Saladas argue that the enforcement of sewer tap-ins is delegated to Marshall Township pursuant to section 1501(a) of the Second Class Township Code.3 Section 1501(a) provides that a township “may establish and construct a system of sewers and drainage” and “may permit and, where necessary for the public health, require adjoining and adjacent property owners to connect with and use the same.” 53 P.S. § 66501(a).

To buttress their argument, the Saladas point out to this court that Marshall Township, in accordance with its legislative authority under section 1501(a) of the Second Class Township Code, passed Ordinance 140 authorizing the Saladas to elect not to tap-in to the public sewer.4 The record in this [330]*330case reveals that Ordinance 140 was later repealed by Marshall Township.

It is clear from section 1501(a) that a second class township such as Marshall Township has the authority to construct public sewer systems and may permit or require a property owner to connect to a sewer system for the- protection of public health. But it is also clear that section 1501(a) was not enacted to override the authority of an established county health department to enforce valid regulations promulgated for the protection of the public health. There is no language in the Second Class Township Code that gives property owners a right to continue to use private sewage disposal systems if such systems violate valid rules and regulations of an established county health department.

Section 1501(a) allows all second class townships in the Commonwealth to require connections to a public sewer to protect the public health. If a local county health department exists, that health department is also empowered under the Local Health Administration Law with the authority to deal with issues relating to the public health in second class townships. 16 P.S. § 12013. There are no exemptions in the Local Health Administration Law or the Second Class Township Code that limit a county health department’s jurisdiction over second0 class townships where sewer connections are concerned.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grayned v. City of Rockford
408 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n v. Commonwealth
607 A.2d 850 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1992)
Grayned v. City of Rockford
408 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
627 A.2d 261, 156 Pa. Commw. 325, 1993 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salada-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1993.