Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Wolf](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10813562/com-of-pa-v-n-vaccarello/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. of PA v. N. Vaccarello

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1485 C.D. 2024
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Wolf

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (8)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Wolf

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :
:
v. : No. 1485 C.D. 2024
:
Nicholas Vaccarello, :
Appellant : Submitted: February 3, 2026

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE WOLF FILED: March 23, 2026

Nicholas Vaccarello (Vaccarello) appeals from an order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Butler County (trial court) dated April 15, 2024, finding him
guilty of violating Section 220-10 of the Borough of Prospect Property Maintenance
Ordinance (Ordinance)1 and imposing a $1,000 fine. Concluding that the trial court
had sufficient evidence to find Vaccarello guilty of violating the Ordinance, we
affirm the trial court.
I. BACKGROUND
Vaccarello is the owner of real property at 140 Kennedy Road, Prospect
Borough, Pennsylvania (the Property). On January 27, 2022, the Borough issued

1
The Ordinance provisions can be found at pages 72a-79a of the Reproduced Record or can
be accessed online at https://ecode360.com/PR2429 (last visited March 20, 2026).
Vaccarello a citation for violation of Section 220-10 of the Ordinance (Buildings
and structures), which provides:

A. No owner of any building or structure shall fail to take
steps and perform such maintenance thereto, as may be
required from time to time, to ensure the property is safe,
sound, sanitary and secure and does not present a health
and/or safety hazard to surrounding properties and to the
general populace.

B. No owner of any unoccupied building or structure shall
fail to take such steps as may be required to ensure that
these are securely closed so as to prohibit and deter entry
thereto and to ensure that no health and/or safety hazard,
or threat thereof, is precipitated due to a lack of
maintenance or due to neglect.

C. Owners of any and all unoccupied buildings and/or
structures which, through neglect, have deteriorated to the
point of being classified as unoccupied hazards, and
therefore constitute a severe health and/or safety hazard,
shall, upon direction of the Borough Council, remove, or
cause the removal of, the building and/or structure.

Ordinance § 220-10, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 73a. A magistrate judge held a
hearing on the citation, and subsequently found Vaccarello guilty of violating
Section 220-10 of the Ordinance. Vaccarello appealed to the trial court, which held
a de novo summary trial.
At trial, the Borough offered the testimony of building code official and
zoning officer Jeffrey Richardson. He testified regarding the history of violations at
the Property, as well as the Property’s current state. During Richardson’s testimony,
photographic exhibits showing the alleged violations were produced and entered into
evidence. Richardson testified that one building on the Property has a partially

2
missing roof. R.R. at 35a. He noted that tires were placed on the roof of that building
to hold down remaining panels. Id. at 18a. Photographs also showed, and
Richardson testified to, a ladder leading up to the roof of the building with the
missing roof panels. Id. at 34a.2 He identified and testified that multiple accessory
buildings on the Property were in poor condition. Id. at 35a. He further testified
that he attempted to work with Vaccarello and give him time to bring the Property
into compliance with the Ordinance, but Vaccarello had still failed to do so. Id. at
44a.
Vaccarello testified next. He testified that he has owned the Property
since 1989. R.R. at 45a. He further testified that the condition of the damaged
buildings on the Property was the result of a storm in 2017. Id. at 46a, 57a. He also
testified as to various work he had done to attempt to repair the buildings but noted
that multiple injuries and medical conditions had hindered his ability to do more.
See, e.g., R.R. 45-48a, 53a.
At the conclusion of the summary trial, the trial court issued an order
finding Vaccarello guilty of violating Section 220-10 of the Ordinance and fining
him $1,000. Vaccarello subsequently appealed to this Court.
II. ISSUES
On appeal,3 Vaccarello contends that the trial court did not have
sufficient evidence to find that he violated Section 220-10 of the Ordinance and

2
Photographic exhibits on the record also show another accessory building with portions of
the exterior wall missing, along with unused vehicles, overgrown weeds, and debris, as well as
other views and angles of the buildings in disrepair. See generally Trial Court Exhibit 12.
3
In reviewing a summary conviction matter, where the trial court has taken additional
evidence in de novo review, our standard of review is limited to considering whether the trial court
abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Com. v. Halstead, 79 A.3d 1240, 1242 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2013) (citing Com. v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254, 1255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)).

3
offers two arguments in support.4 First, he argues that Section 220-10 of the
Ordinance does not apply to his Property. He submits that the Ordinance is “directed
for buildings, structures or properties which are used or associated with human
occupancy,” Vaccarello’s Br. at 9, and the buildings in question are unused farm
buildings. Vaccarello points specifically to the prefatory language of Section 220-6
of the Ordinance, which provides:

Recognizing the need within the Borough of Prospect to
establish certain minimum health and safety requirements
for those buildings, structures or properties which are used
or associated with human occupancy, this article hereby
establishes standards which the Borough Council
considers to be fair and essential in meeting those
minimum requirements.

Ordinance § 220-6, R.R. at 72a. Reading Section 220-6 and 220-10 together,
Vaccarello argues it is obvious that the Ordinance “was directed for a residential
urban area as opposed to rural farmlands.” Vaccarello’s Br. at 11. Second, if Section
220-10 of the Ordinance is found to apply, Vaccarello argues that the evidence
offered at trial was insufficient to find that the condition of the Property posed a
“health and/or safety hazard.”
The Borough responds that there is nothing in the Ordinance that
exempts farms from meeting the requirements set forth in Section 220-10, and the
plain language thereof specifically contemplates both occupied and unoccupied
buildings or structures. The Borough also maintains that the trial court’s verdict is
supported by the evidence introduced at trial.

4
While Vaccerello’s brief combines these issues, we address them separately for ease of
discussion. See Vaccerello’s Br. at 9-12.

4
III. DISCUSSION
A. Application of Section 220-10
We address first the application of Section 220-10 to Vaccarello’s
Property. When construing municipal ordinances this Court applies the Statutory
Construction Act of 1972.5 Chester Water Auth. v. Kennett Twp. Zoning Hearing
Bd. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 377 CD 2020, filed March 17, 2021) slip op. at 11 n. 14.6
“The plain language of a[n] [ordinance] generally provides the best indication of
legislative intent, and therefore, statutory construction begins with analyzing the text
itself.” City of Clairton v. Zoning Hearing Board of City of Clairton, 246 A.3d 890,
903 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021). When the words of a statute [or ordinance] are clear and
free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of
pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921(b). Accordingly, where the plain language is
clear, this Court need not resort to interpretive tools. “While not controlling, the
preamble may be used in the interpretation of an ordinance.” Borough of Edgeworth
v. MacLeod, 456 A.2d 682, 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Turning to the plain language of Section 220-10, we reject Vaccarello’s
contention that human occupancy is a necessary prerequisite to a violation of the
Ordinance. First, Section 220-10 plainly contemplates both “building[s]” and
“unoccupied building[s].” Moreover, Section 220-8 of the Ordinance defines
“building” as “a roofed structure, enclosed by one or more walls, for the shelter,
housing, storage or enclosure of persons, goods, materials, equipment or animals.”
Ordinance § 220-8, R.R. 72a. The fact that this definition includes structures for the

5
1 Pa. C.S. §§ 1501-1991.
6
See Section 414(a) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) (providing that unreported Commonwealth Court
opinions issued after January 15, 2008, may be cited for their persuasive value).

5
storage of equipment and animals is clearly inclusive of farm buildings not used for
human occupancy.
The prefatory language Vaccarello relies on in Section 220-6 of the
Ordinance in no way alters this conclusion. In fact, Section 220-6 states there is a
recognized need to establish certain health and safety requirements “for those
buildings, structures or properties which are used or associated with human
occupancy.” Ordinance § 220-6, R.R. 72a. This language cannot be read to limit
the remainder of the Ordinance to apply to only human-occupied buildings, nor does
it support Vaccarello’s broad proposition that the Ordinance was only intended to
apply to residential urban areas. The language of the Ordinance is clear on its face.
Thus, we reject Vaccarell’s argument that human occupancy is a necessary element
in finding a violation of Section 220-10.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
We turn next to Vaccarello’s contention that the evidence at trial was
insufficient to establish a “health and/or safety hazard” on the Property. Ordinance
§ 220-10. In “summary offense cases, the Commonwealth is required to establish”
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Com. v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254, 1258 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2002). Consequently, we must view all of the evidence admitted at trial,
together with reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth. Id. “The test of sufficiency of the evidence is whether the trial
court, as trier of fact, could have found that each element of the offenses charged
was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id.
Following a fulsome review of the record, we disagree with Vaccarello
that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the conditions on his Property

6
constituted a health or safety hazard under the Ordinance. The Borough presented
the testimony of Richardson and photographic evidence that showed the buildings
on the Property were dilapidated, in poor condition, and not securely closed as
required by Section 220-10 of the Ordinance. See R.R. 35a-36a. In its 1925(a)
Opinion, the trial court noted that “the photos show an extension ladder leaning
against [a] building, allowing easy access to the roof [with] large holes in it, posing
a safety hazard.” 1925(a) Opinion at 3. It further noted that “[a]dditional photos
depict another building, with an arched roof, containing several large openings in
one of the exterior walls visible in the photos. Both of these buildings were clearly
not safe, or secure, and were clearly open to easy entry, in violation of the
ordinance.” Id. On this record, the trial court’s conclusion that the Property’s
condition presented safety hazards in violation of the Ordinance was based on
sufficient evidence, namely photographs of the Property and Richardson’s testimony
as to its poor condition. Accordingly, it did not err in finding Vaccarello guilty of
violating Section 220-10 of the Ordinance.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge

7
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :
:
v. : No. 1485 C.D. 2024
:
Nicholas Vaccarello, :
Appellant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March 2026, the April 15, 2024 order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County in the above-captioned matter is
AFFIRMED.

---

MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge