Com. v. Geigley
| Citation | 650 A.2d 1224,168 Pa.Cmwlth. 531 |
| Parties | , 5 NDLR P 480 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert W. GEIGLEY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1995 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Robert W. Geigley, pro se.
Bernard A. Yannetti, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before COLINS, President Judge, NEWMAN, J., and SILVESTRI, Senior Judge.
Robert W. Geigley (Geigley), pro se, appeals from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County which imposed fines of $15.00 and costs for two parking violation convictions.
The facts were stipulated and are as follows. Geigley, who has a handicapped license, parked his automobile on Mummasburg, the street in front of his house on September 27 and September 29, 1993. The vehicle was parked three (3) hours and fourteen (14) minutes on the first occasion and three (3) hours and 55 minutes on the second occasion.
Based upon the stipulated facts, and after a hearing held February 22, 1994, the trial court found Geigley guilty of violating the Borough of Gettysburg (Borough) Ordinance, Chapter 15, Section 10(4), regarding residential parking limits, and violations for being in excess of those limits. Specifically, this Section of the Ordinance requires a residential permit 1 for parking a vehicle in excess of two hours in a residential area. Geigley has a handicapped license but did not have a residential permit.
Geigley now appeals the order of the trial court and argues that a handicapped person is immune from the parking regulations of a municipality because of his disability and is additionally entitled to a one-hour grace period before being issued a citation for a parking violation. 2
Geigley maintains that the Borough is required to designate a reserved spot for his residential parking convenience pursuant to Section 3354(d)(2) of the Vehicle Code (Code), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3354(d)(2). This section provides, in pertinent part:
"(2) At the request of any handicapped person or severely disabled veteran, local authorities may erect on the highway as close as possible to their place of residence a sign or signs indicating that that place is reserved for the handicapped person ... that no parking is allowed there by others, and that any unauthorized person parking there shall be subject to a fine."
We have previously determined that the general rules of statutory construction are applicable to both statutes and ordinances. Diehl v. City of McKeesport, 60 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 561, 432 A.2d 288 (1981). Clear meaning must be given to the words in the statute or ordinance. Hyser v. Allegheny County, 61 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 169, 434 A.2d 1308 (1981). When words of a statute or ordinance are clear and free from ambiguity, a court may not disregard the letter of the statute or ordinance under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. Rudolph v. Zoning Hearing Board of College Township, 80 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 28, 470 A.2d 1104 (1984).
Herein, the Code provision indicates that a Borough "may" erect a sign for the benefit of the disabled. The term "may" in statutory provisions indicates that the action is discretionary. Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Sadvary), 524 Pa. 235, 570 A.2d 84 (1990); Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 381 Pa.Superior Ct. 23, 552 A.2d 1075 (1988). From our interpretation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eltoron, Inc. v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF CITY OF ALIQUIPPA
...1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). 16. The rules of statutory construction apply to both statutes and ordinances. See Commonwealth v. Geigley, 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 531, 650 A.2d 1224 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 638, 659 A.2d 557 ...
-
Thorpe v. Bureau of Admin. Adjudication
...a specific time did not provide him with an unlimited right to park illegally due to his medical condition. Id. Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Geigley, 650 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), we rejected a handicapped motorist's argument that the borough's failure to provide him with a reserved sp......
-
Fullman v. Bureau of Admin. Adjudication
...added). Even assuming Fullman meant to cite Section 3354(d)(1) of the Code, it still does not support his position. See Commonwealth v. Geigley, 650 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (wherein this Court held that Section 3354(d)(1) of the Code did not preclude issuance of a parking citation to a......
-
Com. v. Geigley
...A.2d 557 540 Pa. 638 Commonwealth v. Robert W. Geigley * NO. 0612 M.D.ALLOC (1994) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania May 15, 1995 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 531, 650 A.2d 1224 Appeal from the Superior Disposition: Denied. *See No. 127 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1. ...