Technical Assistance - Pennsylvania Land Use Law : PA Land Use

Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.

Accelerated Enterprises, Inc. v. Hazle Twp. (2001) (Safety and welfare standards for special exception)
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Department of Transportation (2004) (Actual prejudice is a necessary element of “laches” when a governing board delays enforcement)
Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Township (2006) (A commercial sign advertiser has the burden of demonstrating that a zoning ordinance’s distinction between on-site and off-site advertising has no rational basis or nexus to the public’s health, safety and welfare, where the differing treatment is content neutral and does not effect a total ban on commercial speech)
Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Hampton Twp. (2005) (A federal district court should not abstain from deciding federal claims related to local government land use actions, especially when the claimants seek monetary damages for alleged violations of federal law)
Advantage Development, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Jackson Twp. (2000) (Must specify reasons for denial of a plan)
Agnew v. Bushkill Twp. ZHB (2003) (Special Exceptions)
Albert v. ZHB of North Abington Twp. (2004) (“Family” is more then related persons, but there must be stability among residents)
Alexander v. Zoning Hearing Board of Mount Joy Township (2008) (A property owner’s concerns about the impact of future development on his land were too remote to establish standing to challenge the validity of a zoning ordinance)
Alta Vita Condominium Assoc. v. ZHB of the Twp. of Hempfield (1999) (Zoning not longer applies after approval of PRD)
Apgar v. ZHB of Manheim (1995) (Enactment of zoning ordinance is a legislative act)
Appeal of: Rural Route Neighbors (2008) (Evidence that the Township solicitor followed customary office procedures for mailing letters was sufficient evidence that the township complied with the requirements of the MPC for forwarding amendments to ordinances within 30 days of enactment even though there was no evidence of actual receipt by the planning department)
Appletree Land Development v. ZHB of York Twp. (2003) (De minimus variances- the change must be very small)
Arbor Resources Limited Liability Co. v. Nockamixon Township (2009) (Zoning ordinances regulating oil and gas operations, including restrictions on lot size, setback requirements and environmental protections, constitute traditional zoning which may be challenged only through the statutory zoning appeal procedure in the MPC. The Common Pleas Court could not exercise equitable jurisdiction to review the same unless the challenger first exhausted the appeal procedure in the MPC)
Arter v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (2007) (A crematory and funeral home are primary uses of land and not customary and incidental to a cemetery use under the Philadelphia Zoning Code)
Atticks v. Lancaster Township Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (A person who is not a party to an action may appeal a zoning board decision if they have a legally enforceable interest that is not adequately represented)
Baker v. Chartiers Twp. (1994) (Rezoning distinguished from validity challenges)
Baker v. Chartiers Twp. ZHB (1996) (Size and deviation from comprehensive plan are factors to determine “spot zoning”)
Barness Land Development Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Washington Twp. (2004) (Mandamus is only proper when there is a clear right and no other remedy at law)
Becker v. Sewickley Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (Settlement negotiations on an appeal from the ZHB must include the ZHB)
Beers v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Towamensing Twp. (2007) (A township ordinance must be interpreted to give effect to all provisions and accordingly a Zoning Hearing Board’s interpretation of a Township Ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference)
Berryman v. Wyoming Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (Absent actual notice, a circumstance which would give a person reason to believe that approval had been given, such as visible construction, begins the 30 day period for the appeal of a building permit)
Blue Mountain Preservation Assn. v. Twp. of Eldred (2005) (Noise condition attached to the approval of a land development plan must provide the precise location of the noise monitoring stations)
Board of Supervisors of East Rockhill Twp. v. Mager (2004) (Governing board lacks standing to appeal when its inaction results in a deemed approval of an application)
Boerner v. Hazle Township ZHB (2004) (Objectors are not required to be notified of land use appeals)
Boron v. Pulaski Township Bd. of Supervisors (2008) (An ordinance was found to be unconstitutionally vague when it failed to define the phrase “state recognized holidays” and gave no reference to any ordinance or law defining such phrase)
Borough of Duncansville v. Beard (2007) (An easement not intended for or used by the public cannot be partially condemned for public purposes as a street)
Borough of Jenkintown v. Board of Commissioners of Abington Twp. (2004) (The standard of review for appellate courts)
Borough of Perkasie v. Moulton Builders, Inc. (2004) (To reject a conditional use application, there must be evidence to support the denial)
Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia (1980) (Burdens of proof in an application for a special exception)
Brendel v. Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Borough of Ridgeway (2001) (Standing of a municipality to appeal)
CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Twp. (2004) (Preliminary Land Development Plans)
Caln Nether Co., L.P. v. Board of Supervisors of Thornbury Twp. (2004) (Exclusionary zoning of car dealerships)
Candela v. Millcreek Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (An appellate court is unlikely to disturb the granting of a variance where an objector offers no expert testimony or other evidence in rebuttal of an applicant’s evidence)
Carbo v. Redstone Township (2008) (There was no fraud involved in a transaction whereby the Township conveyed property to the Sewer Authority, without public advertisement and bidding, and the Sewer Authority subsequently sold to a third party because there is no requirement of public bidding when Township conveys property to a municipal authority and the Sewer Authority was not acting as a straw party to the transaction)
Cellco Partnership v. North Annville Township ZHB (2007) (A cell phone tower was not a permitted use in an R-1 Residential District because it was not sufficiently similar to the allowed uses of a public utility or municipal structure)
Chanceford Aviation Properties, LLP v. Chanceford Township (2007) (The Airport Zoning Act (“AZA”) requires municipalities with public airports to adopt and enforce airport zoning regulation)
Chrin Brothers, Inc. v. Williams Twp. ZHB, et al. (2003) (Regulating of clearcutting forest land)
Christman v. ZHB of the Twp. of Windsor (2004) (ZHB members should be recused when unable to act impartially)
City of Hope v. Sadsbury Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (A campground is not an accessory use to a worship center)
City of Philadelphia v. Steen Outdoor Adver. (2007) (The determination of whether an advertising sign is an “outdoor advertising sign” or an “accessory sign” turns upon various factors and not solely upon the sign’s content)
Coal Gas Recovery, L.P. v. Franklin Township ZHB (2008) (A special exception cannot be granted with conditions when all the requirements for the special exception are satisfied and there is no evidence of record supporting the imposition of the conditions)
Collier Stone Co. v. Twp. of Collier Board of Commissioners (1999) (Standing to apply for relief in zoning matters)
Commonwealth v. East Brunswick Township (2008) (The Attorney General had standing to bring an action, at the request of a citizen, in original jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Court against the Township for an alleged “unauthorized local ordinance” under the Agricultural, Communities and Rural Environment Act (“Act 38”). The Court found that Act 38 was constitutional; however, the Court denied summary relief because it was unclear whether the application of sewage sludge was a normal agricultural operation)
Conceptual Development, Inc. v Hampton Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (Where an applicant for a variance grants the ZHB an extension to render its decision, the ZHB’s failure to render a written decision by the extended date will result in a deemed approval of the application)
Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Twp. (2002) (Under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, the threshold question of whether a use is unconstitutionally excluded from a particular zone is to determine whether the use is similar in kind to uses permitted in the zone)
Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Twp (2004) (A Federal law prohibits a zoning ordinance that "substantially burdens" religious exercise)
Coretsky v. Butler Twp. (1989) (Rejection of plans must specify defects)
Cottone v. ZHB of Polk Township (2008) (If adjoining lots are under common ownership when a zoning ordinance is passed that renders them undersized, then the lots are presumed to have merged and the burden is on the landowner to rebut that presumption)
Council Rock School District v. Wrightstown Twp. ZHB (1998) (School may go through special exception process)
Cranberry Park Assoc. v. Cranberry Twp. ZHB (2000) (Failure to record ordinance)
Crystal Forest Associates v. Buckingham Twp. Supervisors (2004) (A municipality may impose disparate restrictions on equivalent uses within different zones)
D. Kasun Associates v. Manheim Twp. Board of Commissioners (2005) (Court of Common Pleas did not abuse discretion in requiring bond under Section 1003-A of the MPC for frivolous appeal)
Dept. of General Services v. Board of Supervisors of Cumberland Twp., Adams County (2002) (The effect of zoning on Commonwealth agencies)
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of State College (2006) (There is no particular percentage of a structure’s floor-area ratio that automatically defines the structure’s primary as opposed to accessory use; such a comparison is relevant, but not a controlling factor in any primary use inquiry)
Domeisen, et al. v. ZHB of O'Hara Twp. (2003) (Special Exception, variance, non-conforming use)
Dubois Dutch, LLC v. Sandy Township Board of Supervisors and Guido (2007) (Although the exercise of a purchase option in a lease did not effectuate a legal subdivision allowing for relation back to the previous ordinance, lessee was entitled to relief under the modification provisions of the MPC and Township Ordinance)
Earl Twp. v. Reading Broad Casting, Inc. (2001) (Communications towers are not a “public utility”)
East Caln Township v. East Caln Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (Public health and safety concerns alone will not support a finding of undue hardship to permit a dimensional variance)
East Lampeter Twp. v. Commission of Lancaster Human Relations Commission (2000) (Motivation behind enacting zoning ordinance is inapplicable)
Elizabethtown/Mt. Joy Associates, L.P. v. Mount Joy Township Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (Where an applicant fails to meet all requirements for a special exception, a zoning hearing board has no duty to grant a special exception application with conditions)
Elotron v. ZHB of the City of Aliquippa (1999) (Enforcement notice not necessary when building permit is obtained by misrepresentation)
Ephrata Area School District v. Lancaster County (2005) (A party seeking a right of way over private land is not required to seek permission from the county who holds an open space easement in the land)
Ethan-Michael, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (2007) (Non-agricultural conditional and accessory uses do not undercut the validity of a Zoning Ordinance enacted to preserve active and productive agricultural lands)
Exeter Twp. v. Exeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (A sign ordinance limiting signs to twenty five square feet does not unconstitutionally exclude “industry standard” sized billboards)
Finegan v. Board of Supervisors of Earl Twp. (2003) (Non-conforming uses, special exceptions, and conditional uses)
Finn v. Zoning Hearing Board of Beaver Borough (2005) (The periodic non-use of a signpost does not constitute substantial evidence of actual abandonment of the nonconforming use of the property)
Fisher v. Viola, Jr., et. al. (2001) (Lot size requirements- must be economically reasonable)
Folino v. Greenwich Twp. (2004) (A plan is considered "filed" if a preliminary plan is offered but the Board refuses to review it)
Gallagher v. Chestnuthill Township (2009) (Where a property owner receives subdivision and land development approval for subdivision into one-acre lots, but fails to complete the required improvements within 3 years, the property is subject to the provisions of the new ordinance restricting development to two-acre lots, whether or not the landowner paid taxes assessed on the one-acre lots prior to the zoning change)
Gehres v. Falls Township (2008) (A municipality established that it had a prescriptive easement to discharge storm water across private property because the discharge was adverse, open, notorious, continuous and uninterrupted for a period of more than 21 years)
Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board (2009) (Challenges to the validity of zoning ordinances based on the void ab initio doctrine were rejected based on the period of time of acquiescence – the period the ordinances survived without challenge, the reasonable reliance on the provisions of the ordinances by Township residents and the potential turmoil that would result upon declaring the ordinances void based on procedural defects in enactment)
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Dover Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (A challenge alleging procedural defects in the enactment of an ordinance may be brought more than thirty days after the ordinance’s intended effective date)
Glen-Gery Corp. v. ZHB of Dover Twp. (2004) (Must challenge a zoning ordinance with 30 days of its enactment)
Glenside Center, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board (2009) (Use of property for alcoholics anonymous meetings did not constitute office use under zoning ordinance, and Zoning Hearing Board’s exclusion of such use was not a violation of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act)
Good v. Zoning Hearing Board of Heidelberg Township (2009) (In issuing a special exception concerning animal operations, a municipality may impose conditions more stringent than those provided by Federal and State law, and conditions designed to promote public safety and health will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion)
Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Twp. (2003) (Governmental Immunity)
Gratton v. Conte (1950) (A planning commission is merely a recommendatory body, the final decisions for zoning rests in the elected officials)
Great Lakes Energy Partners, Penneco Oil Company, CB Energy, Inc. and Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania v. Salem Township (2007) (A Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance regulations relating to oil and gas operations were preempted by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act)
Great Valley School District v. ZHB of East Whiteland Twp. (2004) (There is still a substantial burden to prove unnecessary hardship for a dimensional variance)
Greth Development Group, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Heidelberg Township (2007) (A Zoning Hearing Board does not have authority to allocate sewage capacity between proposed development projects)
Guido v. Sandy Township (2005) (A division-in-fact of property does not in itself constitute Subdivision approval under the MPC)
Hafner v. Zoning Hearing Board of Allen Township (2009) (In order to establish a valid, nonconforming use, the landowner has the burden of demonstrating legal use of the property for the activity in question prior to enactment of the zoning in question; to demonstrate right to variance by estoppel, landowner must produce evidence that without such variance, the property would be rendered valueless)
Haller v. Lower Windsor Twp. Board of Supervisors (2005) (A municipal board must send each revision of a proposed zoning ordinance--including explanatory materials--to the county planning commission for recommendation, and cannot hold a public hearing on the ordinance for at least 45 days after the board’s last revision)
Hanover Healthcare Plus, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Penn Twp. (2005) (Section 609(e) of the MPC requires a governing body to submit each revision of a proposed zoning amendment to the county planning commission for review)
Hanscom v. Bitler (2005) (The MPC does not require a municipality to publicly dedicate a street or road simply because it is built to public road specifications under a subdivision and land development ordinance)
Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania, Inc. v. College Township Council (2006) (A zoning ordinance that limits the expansion of mining activities is not per se invalid for failing to provide for reasonable mineral development if the governing body completed the appropriate balancing analysis under Section 603 of the MPC)
Harman v. Forest County Conservation District and Planning Bd. (2008) (A decision by a Subdivision Administrator, as agent of the Planning Board, constituted a final decision and was appealable to the court of common pleas)
Hartner v. ZHB of Upper St. Clair Twp. (2004) (Evidence necessary at enforcement notice appeal)
Hazelton Area School District v. ZHB of Hazle Twp. (2001) (Zoning of school recreational facilities used for non-educational purposes)
Hellam Township v. Hellam Township Zoning Hearing Board (2008) (A developer’s plan that was submitted in 2001 was substantially similar to a 1996 plan; therefore, the 1996 ordinances governed review of the plan)
Hertzberg v. ZHB of Pittsburgh (1998) (Lesser standard for "unnecessary hardship" for dimensional variance)
Hionis v. Concord Township (2009) (A plaintiff may seek review of an interlocutory order granting preliminary objections but providing the ability to file an amended pleading, by waiting until the time period for amendment expires and petitioning the lower court for an order dismissing the complaint)
Hoffman Mining Company, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township (2008) (Landowners applied for a variance to conduct surface mining within 300 feet of residences because the local ordinance required a setback of 1000 feet, and Landowners also argued that the ordinance was preempted by state law. The Commonwealth Court found that the local ordinance was not preempted because it regulated land use which is within the power of the local municipality and the landowners were not entitled to a variance because they did not show that there was no other reasonable use of the land.)
Home Builders Asso. of Chester, et al. v. Comm. PA, DEP et al. (2003) (DEP storm water permits were permissible policy, not a regulation)
Hoppe v. ZHB of the Borough of Portland (2006) (An applicant for a special exception permit has the burden of demonstrating that the proposed use satisfies the objective criteria for the permit under the applicable zoning ordinance)
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of the Borough of Oakmont (2007) (The Borough exceeded its authority when it denied a conditional use application for the extraction of natural gas, since natural gas is a mineral under the MPC and the Oil and Gas Act preempts the Borough Ordinance with regard to the location of an oil or gas well)
Hydropress Environmental Service, Inc. v. Twp. of Upper Mt. Bethel (2003) (Regulation of particular uses)
In re: Agricultural Security Area in East Lampeter Township (2009) (Irrespective of municipal planning and zoning for agricultural preservation, a municipality is without discretion to deny a request for creation of an agricultural security area under the Agricultural Security Law when the property satisfies the soils, zoning and agricultural use factors set forth in the Act)
In re Appeal of Busik (2000) (Preliminary plan approval is a final appealable decision, failure to appeal is a waiver)
In re: Appeal of Deemed Approved Conditional Use (2009) (A neighboring landowner successfully challenged a conditional use permit – granted by deemed approval based on the municipality's failure to issue a written decision – as the permit was improper where the proposed use was prohibited by the applicable zoning ordinance and the landowners failed to obtain seven necessary variances prior to filing their application for conditional use permit)
In re: Appeal of the Cutler Group, Inc. (2005) (Governing board may not deny a conditional use application on grounds of pre-existing dangerous traffic condition or in absence of sufficient evidence of a high probability that the proposed use substantially threatens the welfare of the community)
In re: Appeal of Janice Boyer (2008) (Property owner was not entitled to a variance when she failed to establish that the property was subject to unnecessary hardship and arguably only proved that she was subject to hardship)
In re Appeal of Realen Valley Forge Greens Associates. (2003) (Reverse spot zoning)
In re: Appeal of Thompson (2006) (A court of common pleas errs in a land use appeal when, without taking additional evidence, it makes its own findings of fact and conclusions of law)
In re: Application of Brandywine Realty Trust to the Newtown Twp. ZHB (2004) (An ordinance should be read together and use common understanding of words to interpret)
In Re: Brickstone Realty Corp. (2001) (Concrete evidence of an expert nature required before zoning hearing board can find a high probability that special exception is not in the public interest)
In Re: Condemnation by the Beaver Falls Municipal Authority (2008) (A municipal authority’s exercise of its eminent domain power was set aside when the land taken was in excess of that which was reasonably required to serve the public purpose)
In re: Condemnation by the Borough of Hanover of Land and Interests in Land Owned by Hanover Public School District (2008) (A Borough does not have the authority to take public land or property)
In re: Condemnation by the County of Berks, a Third Class County, of Lands and all Improvements thereon for Public Recreation Places and Public Parks (2007) (An entity lacks standing as a condemnee in an eminent domain proceeding if it has no legal or equitable property interest in the property being condemned)
In re: Condemnation by the Economy Borough Municipal Authority (2007) (In eminent domain cases, a party may not appeal as a matter of right from a non-final order overruling that party’s preliminary objections to the opponent’s preliminary objections)
In re: Condemnation by the Municipality of Penn Hills (D'Andrea) (2005) (Preliminary injunction preventing development not a compensable taking where municipal boundary dispute existed between incongruent land use zones)
In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of York (2008) (Delay damages are awarded only for the loss of the use of property from the time an owner relinquishes possession until they receive just compensation)
In re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of Lawrence County (2008) (A government entity cannot take property through eminent domain under the Urban Redevelopment Law for purely economic development unless there is evidence demonstrating it is blighted)
In Re Condemnation by the Twp. of Manheim (2005) (Under the Eminent Domain Code, a landowner has five years to petition the court for distribution of a disputed just compensation payment)
In re Condemnation by West Chester Area School District (2001) (Condemnation Hearing must follow the Sunshine Act’s procedures)
In re Condemnation (Newport Homeowner's Assn.) (2005) (A municipal authority's power of eminent domain includes the power to acquire private sewer system and allows condemnation of a lesser estate than fee simple)
In Re: Condemnation of Land for the South East Central Business District Redevelopment Area #1 (2008) (An otherwise proper taking does not lose its public character merely because a redeveloper may profit from the taking)
In re: Condemnation of Springboro Area Water Authority (2006) (An unregulated municipal water authority is not exempt from having to seek approval from local governing boards to exercise powers of eminent domain)
In re: Condemnation Proceeding by South Whitehall Township Authority (2008) (The taking of an easement “over, under and through” a piece of property does not result in a fee simple interest taking as a matter of law)
In re Condemnation (St. Mary's Roman Catholic Congregation of Sharpsburg) (2006) (A First Class Township may condemn, for recreational purposes, property owned by a church and which was designated to be used as a cemetery)
In re: DeFacto Condemnation and Taking of Lands of WBF Associates, L.P. (2009) (A jury verdict concerning fair market value of property subject to a de facto taking will be upheld as based on substantial evidence where the jury views the property and its valuation is within the range of expert appraisals during trial, and a landowner is properly awarded interest, delay damages and attorneys' fees)
In re: Erie Golf Course (2009) (A request by a political subdivision to dispose of previously-donated property is governed by the Donated or Dedicated Property Act whether or not a formal acceptance of that property was made by the political subdivision, and disposal may be based on fiscal or economic impracticability so long as the public actors have not acted based on fraud, bad faith, capriciousness or abuse of power)
In re 1839 North Eighth Street (2006) (A redevelopment authority may not use public funds to acquire land for a religious organization for the construction and operation of a private school even if the land is certified as blighted)
In re Petition of Dolington Land Group and Toll Brothers from the Decision of the ZHB of Upper Makefield Twp. (2003) (Method of analysis to determine validity of multi-municipality zoning ordinance)
In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates (2001) (Uses in zoning ordinance prevail over uses stated in the comprehensive plan)
In re: Schieber (2007) (A municipality did not abuse its discretion by adopting a more restrictive ordinance with respect to flood plain boundaries than that required by FEMA)
In Re: The Appeal of LVGC Partners, LP and Lebanon Valley Golf Club, Inc., from the Decision of the Jackson Township Zoning Hearing Board on the Petition regarding the Validity of Adoption of Ordinance No. 5-2006 (2008) (Under the Municipalities Planning Code, personal notice is not required for a hearing regarding the adoption of a zoning ordinance)
In Re: The Condemnation by the County of Allegheny (2004) (The compensation for a taking should be determined by a board of viewer, not raised in preliminary objections)
In the Matter of Condemnation of Property in Perry Township (2007) (A municipality can authorize a declaration of taking by the adoption of a resolution)
Jacquelin v. Horsham Township (1973) (A variance must be granted where the zoning ordinance permits only uses for which the land is totally unsuited)
Jay-Lee, Inc. v. The Municipality of Kingston ZHB (2001) (Analysis of whether proposed use is sufficiently similar to previous non-conforming use)
Jim Thorpe Area School District v. Kidder Township (1999) (Exclusionary zoning of public schools)
Joe Darrah, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Spring Garden Twp. (2007) (A Zoning Hearing Board lacks authority to issue advisory opinions)
Johnson v. The Township of Plumcreek (2004) (An ordinance requiring connections to public water is not a “state created danger”)
K. Hovnanian Pennsylvania Acquisitions, LLC v. Newtown Township Board of Supervisors (2008) (Applicant’s conditional use application was denied because it failed to comply with all the requirements of the ordinance)
Kang v. Supervisors of Spring Twp. (2001) (Uses in PRD may not be expanded by relying on the zoning ordinance)
Kassouf v. Scott Twp. (2005) (A municipal board’s rejection of a development plan satisfies Section 508(2) of the MPC so long as one of the stated reasons for rejection properly cites applicable ordinance provisions)
Kee v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (1998) (The effect of zoning on Commonwealth agencies)
Keinath v. Township of Edgmont (2009) (An ordinance restricting development in an R-1 District to one unit per two acres was not invalid or subject to curative amendment where the restriction was reasonably related to the Township’s interest in protecting the public health, safety and welfare and the Ordinance did not completely exclude a legitimate use)
Kelo v. New London (2005) (Condemnation for economic development purposes can constitute a public use under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution)
Ken-Med Associates v. Bd. of Township Supervisors of Kennedy Township (2006) (Variances will not be granted solely to maximize economic value nor when there is self-inflicted hardship)
Kightlinger v. Bradford Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (A state agency must comply with local zoning and land use restrictions in the absence of a clear legislative intent to give the agency preemptive land use powers)
Kline v. ZHB of the Twp. of Upper Saint Clair (2006) (A Township that provided two-day written notice of a rescheduled hearing for a property owner’s appeal and variance request failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing date)
Kohr v. Lower Windsor Twp. Board of Supervisors (2006) (There is no requirement that the sewer planning process be completed prior to the granting of a preliminary subdivision and land development plan, only that the process be commenced)
Koller v. Weisenberg Twp. (2004) (When attaching conditions to the approval of a land development plan, the municipal board need not specify the defects and ordinances relied upon for each condition)
Koresko v. Farley, et al. (2004) (Encroaching tree roots do not create a prescriptive easement)
Krupa v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board (2008) (Property owners must apply for recognition of a nonconforming use)
Lamar Advertising v. Borough of Deer Lake Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (The complete prohibition of off-site billboard advertising is unconstitutional. A successful constitutional challenge does not automatically entitle the challenger to a variance.)
Lamar Advertising Company v. Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (The Construction Code Act does not authorize deemed approvals for permits relating to the construction of billboards. Billboard LED conversions may be subject to conditional use and site plan approval under the MPC and local zoning ordinances. )
Larock v. Board of Supervisors of Sugarloaf Twp. (2005) (An ordinance reasonably provides for a particular use and does not create a de facto exclusion when all competing interests are balanced in a way that reflects the policy goals of the community)
Laurel Point Associates v. Susquehanna Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (Landowner failed to satisfy any of the evidentiary approaches used to establish the confiscation element of a “validity variance”)
Laurento v. ZHB of West Chester et al. (1994) (Proving “hardship” for a variance)
Lease v. Hamilton Twp. (2006) (If the written denial of a land development plan does not clearly identify what issues have been addressed and what issues remain, Section 508(2) of the MPC is not satisfied)
Leckey v. Lower Southampton Twp ZHB (2004) (Conditions on approval of special exception valid if reasonable and not a manifest abuse of discretion)
Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority v. Fuller (2004) (The Development Approach is an appropriate method of determining just compensation for the condemnation of land)
Lench v. ZHB of Adjustments of the City of Pittsburgh (2004) (Expansion of a non-conforming use was permissible when opening an establishment to the general public)
Leoni v. Whitepain Twp. ZHB (1998) (Persons who may appeal the grant of a variance)
Ligo v. Slippery Rock Township (2007) (Township approved a planned residential development that was consistent with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan and met the specific provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that were applicable to PRDs)
Lingle v. Chevron (2005) (The extent to which a regulation advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to whether the regulation has affected a taking under the Fifth Amendment)
Locust Lake Village Property Owners Ass’n v. Wengerd (2006) (Purchasers of land from a judicial or tax sale take the property subject to any restrictive covenants or easements)
Loduca v. ZHB of the Borough of Danville (2000) (Non-conforming uses- signs)
LTS Development, Inc. v. Middle Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors (2004) (The conditions on a conditional use must relate to the health, safety or welfare of the community)
Luke v. Cataldi (2005) (A conditional use permit cannot be challenged on a procedural basis more than thirty days after its approval)
LVGC Partners, LP v. Jackson Township Bd. of Supervisors (2008) (The deemed approval in Section 508(3) of the Municipalities Planning Code applies only to the 15-day period set forth in the MPC and not to the five-day period of Section 22-303(3)(E) of the Township SALDO)
Machipongo Land & Coal Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002) (Error to vertically separate property interests in calculating denominator under Pennsylvania takings analysis)
Macioce v. ZHB of the Borough of Baldwin (2004) (There must be a need for a wireless tower to prove that the township is unlawfully excluding it)
Magyar v. Lewis Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (Under MPC Section 1002-A, only public notice--not actual knowledge--begins the appeal period for a deemed approval)
MAJ Entertainment, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia (2008) (Allowing patrons to engage in sexual activity was not an accessory use to the operation of a restaurant)
Marple Newtown v. Marple Newtown School District (2004) (An educational unit’s lease does not prohibit a taking by eminent domain)
Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. v. Springfield Twp. (1999) (Zoning ordinances validity under FHA and ADA)
McDonald v. Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (2008) (An amendment to a statue of limitations was applicable because a statute relating to procedural matters is applicable to cases filed after the effective date of the statute)
McGonigle v. Lower Heidelberg Twp. ZHB (2004) (Zoning for agricultural preservation districts survives multiple challenges)
McLoughlin v. ZHB of Newtown Township (2008) (A party not directly involved in a land use action may intervene only as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.)
McMahon v. Kingston Twp. Board of Supervisors (2001) (Communications tower- not a semi-public use)
Meadows of Hanover Development, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of South Hanover Twp. (1999) (Denial of plan cannot rest on the phased development schedule)
Meadows of Hanover Development, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of West Hanover Twp. (1999) (Denial of plan cannot rest on the phased development schedule)
Middle Smithfield Twp. v. Kessler (2005) (A municipality may insist on the completion of roadway improvements before issuing final occupancy certificates, even when PennDOT would otherwise allow access to the property before final completion of the road improvements)
Middletown Twp. v Lands of Stone (2005) (A township’s condemnation of land for “recreational and open space purposes” was allowed because the evidence supported the conclusion that it was taken for recreational purposes and the township did not rely on the Open Space Lands Act to condemn the land)
Monroe Meadows Housing Partnership v. Municipal Council of Monroeville (2007) (A municipality that approves a subdivision plan that includes the dedication of a public street cannot later impose additional dedication conditions that create undue hardships)
Morris v. South Coventry Township Bd. of Supervisors (2006) (Pursuant to section 503(9) of the MPC, a local subdivision ordinance may mandate that final plan approval be conditioned upon the receipt of all necessary state permits)
Mountain Village v. The Board of Supervisors of Longswamp Twp. (2003) (Solicitor’s fees for plan review)
Moy v. Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (A non-public amendment to a building permit can be misleading and the 30-day appeal period of such amendment does not begin until public notice of the amended permit issues)
Muhlenberg College v. ZHB of the City of Allentown (Procedure of submitting amendments to the zoning ordinance)
Narberth Borough v. Lower Merion Township (2007) (A thirty-day appeal period for land use decisions runs from the mailing of a municipality’s written decision, not from a verbal announcement of the decision)
Narberth JKST Tennis Club, Inc. v. Narberth Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (A nonconforming use can be expanded as of right when the nonconformity is not increased. However, a new structure entirely different from the nonconforming use cannot be constructed without obtaining a variance)
National Casualty Company v. Newtown Twp. and James Nolen, III (2000) (Insurance may be available to cover public official liability)
Naylor v. Twp. of Hellam (2001) (Municipality may not issue a moratorium for any purpose)
Nettleton et al. v. ZHB of Adjustment of Pittsburgh et al. (2003) (Extension of a non-conforming use)
Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Clarks Summit Borough (2008) (Applicant was entitled to a deemed approval of its conditional use application because the Borough failed to hold a hearing within 60 days of receipt of the application. Once an application is accepted and retained by a municipality, the time limitations of the MPC begin)
Nolan v. Newtown Twp. (2000) (Temporary moratorium is a de facto taking (Case overruled))
Nolen v. Newtown Twp. (2004) (Moratoriums are an invalid exercise of municipal authority but do not result in a de facto taking)
North Chestnut Hill Neighbors v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia and Woodmere Art Museum (2007) (In determining whether a variance may be granted under the Philadelphia Zoning Code, all three factors must be considered: (1) unique hardship to the property; (2) no adverse effect on the public health, safety or general welfare; and (3) the variance will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief at the least modification possible)
North Codorus Twp. v. North Codorus Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (A land development application submitted before a zoning ordinance amendment becomes effective shall be reviewed under the Zoning Ordinance as it stood before the amendment)
Omnipoint Communications Enterprises v. ZHB of Easttown Township (2001) (Communications towers are protected under the Federal Telecommunications Act)
Omnipoint v. ZHB of Pine Grove Twp. (1999) (Denial of a special exception for a communications tower must be supported by substantial evidence)
Orie v. ZHB of the Borough of Beaver (2001) (Persons who may appeal the grant of a variance)
Pa. Power Co. v. Twp. of Pine (2007) (A municipality does not have the power to compel the underground installation of electric utilities)
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) (Standing--advance notice of an adverse regulatory action does not automatically preclude a subsequent takings claim)
Panzone v. Fayette County ZHB (2008) (Notice of a hearing was not properly served when it was not sent to the attorney of record)
Paupack Township, et al. v. Lake Moc-A-Tek, Inc., et al. (2004) (To establish entitlement to an injunction, a municipality needs only to prove a violation of its ordinance, not irreparable harm to the municipality.)
Pearson v. Newlin Twp. ZHB (2001) (Communications tower fits in the definition of “radio transmitter”)
Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections v. City of Pittsburgh (1987) (Once the requirements of the ordinance are satisfied, objectors bear the burden of proof)
Pennsylvania Cellular Telephone Corp. v. Buck Twp. ZHB (2001) (Communications towers are not a public utility)
Pequea Twp. v. Herr et. al. (1998) (MPC protection to developers against ordinance changes)
Phillips v. ZHB of Montour Twp. (2001) (Ordinance interpretation should be in favor of the landowner)
Philomeno & Salamone v. Upper Merion Twp. Board of Supervisors (2005) (Filing a conditional use application filed after a subdivision application can constitute abandonment of the subdivision application)
Provco Partners v. Limerick Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2004) (Property owners adjacent to a municipality adopting a new zoning ordinance have standing to challenge both the procedural and substantive aspects of the ordinance.)
Quest Land Development Group, LLC v. Township of Lower Heidelberg (2009) (The decision by members of a Board of Supervisors denying a request for special exception is valid and enforceable despite the failure of the board members to take their official oath or file financial statements, and the void ab initio doctrine does not apply to invalidate their actions)
Rabenold v. ZHB of the Borough of Palmerton (2001) (Notice requirements for building permits)
Rappaport v. ZHB of Allentown (1996) (Guidelines for interpretation of uses)
Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates v. Upper Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board (2008) (Appellants were denied the right to intervene because they no longer had any interest in the property)
Residents Against Matrix v. Lower Makefield Twp. (2004) (Before a governing board may grant final approval of a modification to a land development plan expanding the proposed uses, zoning approval as to uses must be obtained)
Rickert v. Latimore Township (2008) (An applicant is entitled to approval of their final subdivision plan if their preliminary plan was approved as long as the final plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan)
Rickert v. Latimore Twp. Board of Supervisors (2004) (Failure to post property affected by zoning change is fatal flaw to validity of zoning ordinance)
Ridley Park United Methodist Church v. Ridley Park Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (A church has the burden of showing that its daycare center is a fundamental religious activity under the Commonwealth’s Religious Freedom Protection Act)
Risker v. Smith Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (A private grass landing strip is not a subordinate and incidental accessory use to a single-family residential use)
Robertson v. Henry Clay Township Hearing Bd. (2006) (A dimensional variance is proper in rebuilding or replacement projects to prevent the extinguishment of a non-conforming use)
Ruf v. Buckingham Twp. (2001) (Municipality may grant modification to subdivisions if enforcement would render land valueless)
Ruiz v. New Garden Township (2004) (ZHB’s order to Landlord to vacate tenants in four months was adequate notice)
Rural Route Neighbors v. East Buffalo Tp. Zoning Hearing Board (2004) (Revised Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code limits the time to file procedural appeals from MPC ordinances)
Schadler v. ZHB of Weisenberg Twp. (2004) (Procedure of submitting amendments to the zoning ordinance)
Schiazza v. ZHB of Fairview Twp. (2001) (ZHB not immune from section 1983 claim of discrimination)
SCRUB v. ZHB of the City of Philadelphia (Ellsworth Associates and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.) (2004) (Unnecessary hardship is not established where property is or can be used for a conforming purpose)
Seipstown Village, LLC v. Weisenberg Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) A zoning hearing board did not err by taking additional testimony and by rescinding a prior oral decision where the oral decision was made before hearing public comment
Shaner v. Schuylkill County Zoning Hearing Board (2004) (The “doctrine of normal expansion” explores the similarities of uses, not industries)
Simonitis v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Swoyersville Borough (2004) (A municipality seeking to show abandonment of a non-conforming use must demonstrate that landowner intended to abandon and actually abandoned the non-conforming use)
Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) v. Zoning Board of Adjustment (2006) (There must be substantial evidence of record supporting the elements of a variance in order to uphold the grant of such relief by a zoning hearing board)
Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB) v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia (Arsenal) (2004) (Multiple infractions of an ordinance are contrary to public policy)
Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment for the City of Philadelphia (Callowhill Center Associates) (A loss of rental income resulting from the denial of a variance for outdoor advertising does not create an unnecessary hardship.) (2002)
Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight v. ZHB of Adjustment for the City of Philadelphia (Conrail) (2001) (Proving “hardship” for a variance)
Solebury Township v. Solebury Township Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (A variance is justified when the natural conditions of the land prevent reasonable development)
Soliday v. Haycock Twp. (2001) (Cash may be substituted for “on site” improvements)
Sombers v. Stroud Township Zoning Hearing Bd. (2006) (A variance may be granted if landowners would be denied the reasonable use of their property absent a variance)
South Whitehall Twp. v. Karoly (2005) (MPC Section 617.2 is constitutional (allowing recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs against the violator) and losing parties have the burden of showing the unreasonableness of the requested fee award)
Southeastern Chester County Refuse Authority (SECCRA) v. Board of Supervisors of London Grove Township (2008) (Applicant was not entitled to a deemed approval when the Township failed to adhere to the time periods set forth in the MPC because Applicant waived its right to a deemed approval by actively participating in eighteen hearings on the matter)
Southeastern Chester County Refuse Auth. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of London Grove Township (2006) (Where an applicant makes both a variance request and a validity challenge in a single application and presents evidence regarding both in its case-in-chief, the 100 day requirement in section 908(9) of the Municipal Planning Code (MPC) does not apply)
Southern Chester County Concerned Citizens Organization v. Lower Oxford Twp. Zoning Board (2007) (The payment of a filing fee is a requirement for the perfection of land use appeal)
Springfield Twp. v. Halderman (2004) (Doctrine of merger is inapplicable to properties that do not conform with public road frontage requirement)
Stassi v. Ranson Twp. ZHB (2001) (Description of how to toll "successive weeks")
Stauffer v. Weisenberg Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (2007) (A conditional approval of a subdivision and land development plan is not a rejection for purposes of the deemed approval provisions of the MPC)
Steeley v. Richland Twp. (2005) (A municipality has no discretion to violate the plain language of its zoning ordinance/A ground lease that allowed construction of a recreational building on open space violated the zoning ordinance.)
Stingray, L.P. v. Concord Township Zoning Hearing Board (2009) (A township may not utilize the most restrictive map in determining existence and location of a floodplain, but instead must comply with the plain language of the zoning ordinance; and a developer may not force a municipality to accept dedication of a private road as public)
Stoltzfus v. Eden Township Zoning Hearing Board (2007) (Log processing does not fit within the MPC’s definition of a “forestry use” where the property does not contain a forest and trees are not cultivated on the property)
Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Providence Twp. (1978) (Multi-step, multi-factor test and scope of review for partial exclusionary zoning of multi-family dwellings)
Sutliff Enterprises, Inc. v. Silver Spring Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2007) (The use of an oscillating searchlight used to attract customers to a business was specifically prohibited by a Township Zoning Ordinance)
Synagro-WWT, Inc. v. Rush Twp. (2003) (Solid Waste Management Act is superior to local zoning ordinances)
T.H. Properties, L.P. v. Upper Salford Township Board of Supervisors (2008) (When a municipality resolves a land use appeal by Court-approved settlement agreement, prior to newly elected Supervisors taking office, the new Board is bound by the settlement agreement unless there were prior objections by a party to the land use appeal and/or there is a showing of extraordinary circumstances)
T.H. Properties, L.P. v. Upper Salford Township Board of Supervisors (2009) (An outgoing Board of Supervisors may enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a land use appeal after election of new Board members but prior to the expiration of the outgoing Board's term, and such agreement cannot be collaterally attacked by the new Board absent extraordinary circumstances)
Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (The capricious disregard standard of review applies to the review of zoning hearing board decisions)
Taylor v. Harmony Twp. Board of Commissioners (2004) (Must challenge an ordinance with 30 days of its enactment)
Teed v. Hilltown Township (2004) (The US Supreme Court is the only federal court that may void a state court)
Telvil Construction Corp. v. East Pikeland Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (A land development application shall be reviewed under the terms of the zoning ordinance in effect on the date the application is duly filed and shall not be afforded the benefit of any favorable zoning amendments enacted after the date of filing)
Tennyson v. Zoning Hearing Board of West Bradford Township (2008) (An objector to a special exception application that satisfies the objective criteria for the use must produce more than speculative evidence of harm)
The Boeing Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Ridley Tp. (2003) (A third party seeking to challenge a judicially-approved settlement of a zoning appeal must intervene in the underlying action to have standing)
The Borough of Dormont v. ZHB of the Borough of Dormont (2004) (Variance by estoppel requires “unnecessary hardship”)
Therres v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Rose Valley (2008) (A notice of appeal was quashed for failing to set forth the basis for the appeal)
Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Horsham Township (2009) (If a third party is permitted to participate, as a party, in an action before a Zoning Hearing Board, that party has status to appeal any adverse decision regardless of whether he has an adverse, direct, immediate or substantial interest in the decision as generally required to grant standing under Pennsylvania law)
Tioga Preservation Group v. Tioga County Planning Commission (2009) (An entity with an option to lease a property for which it seeks land development approval for a wind farm has an ownership interest sufficient to constitute an “applicant” and “landowner” as required by the Municipalities Planning Code, and a municipality may grant a waiver from a provision of its ordinance if it would exact undue hardship or the request for waiver is for an innovative design that advances the purpose of the ordinance)
Twp. of Lower Milford v. Britt (2002) (Jury trial is not guaranteed by right on the appeal from an enforcement action)
Township of O'Hara v. Condemnation of an Easement and Right of Way (2004) (A municipality may condemn lands for a sewer outside its border pursuant to a valid contract with the other municipality.)
Trigona v. Lender (2007) (A municipality may not compel the payment of real estate taxes or municipal obligations through the denial of licenses and permits required for real property development unless such power is conferred by statute)
Trojnacki v. Board of Supervisors of Solebury Twp. (2004) (Municipal capital improvements must be for onsite actions)
Tu-Way Tower Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Salisbury Tp. (1997) (Expansion of telecommunications towers on previously developed site not "land development" under MPC Section 107)
United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Twp. of Warrington (2003) (To succeed on a 1983 discrimination violation, the actions of the municipality must “shock the conscience”)
Upper Southampton Township v. Upper Southampton Township ZHB (2007) (A lease allocating land to a use separate from the existing use does not constitute “land development” under the MPC)
Upper Southampton Twp. v. Upper Southampton Twp. ZHB (2005) (A lease that allocates land to a use separate from the existing use constitutes a “land development” within the meaning of the MPC.)
Valianatos v. ZHB of Richmond Twp. (2001) (Public notice requirements of MPC are mandatory)
41 Valley Associates v. London Grove Twp. Board of Supervisors (2006) (In determining whether property should be deemed an agricultural security area, a governing body should focus on whether the land is appropriate for agricultural uses now and in the future, not whether the existing or proposed use comports with current zoning.)
Valley Township v. Coatesville (2006) (Nothing in the Eminent Domain Code requires a condemnor to file for subdivision approval either before or after a condemnation)
Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustments for Philadelphia (1983) (While an "unnecessary hardship" is required when seeking a variance, the property does not need to be "valueless")
Vaughn v. ZHB of the Township of Shaler (2008) (Property owners were entitled to a variance by estoppel because they relied on representations of the zoning officer and spent substantial amounts of money in the construction of a wall)
Vitti et al v. ZHB of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh and Bethlehem Haven (1998) (MPC’s applicability to Pittsburgh)
Walck v. Lower Towamensing Township ZHB (2008) (Landowner’s stockpiling of sewage sludge on his property was not a permitted agricultural use and the Nutrient Management Act did not preempt the Zoning Ordinance because Landowner did not have an approved voluntary plan in compliance with the NMA)
Warminster Fiberglass Co., Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township (2007) (The construction of billboards is not a miscellaneous use structure related to residential structures under the Construction Code Act. The construction of billboards does not require land development approval under the MPC because it is construction on a small scale. )
Warner Jenkinson Company v. ZHB of Robeson Twp. (2004) (Even after a hazardous waste impoundment is closed, it is still considered to be a use of the land)
Warner-Vaught v. Fawn Township (2008) (Appellant failed to show that a Township road ever existed because she failed to show that the public used the road and that the Township maintained the road for a period of twenty-one years)
WeCare Organics, LLC v. ZHB of Schuylkill County (2008) (Property owner was entitled to a deemed approval of a special exception application because the ZHB failed to issue a written decision within 45 days of the final hearing)
Weiser v. Latimore Township (2008) (An applicant is entitled to approval of their final subdivision plan if their preliminary plan was approved as long as the final plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan)
White v. Township of Upper St. Clair (2009) (Waiver and laches do not serve as a defense to a citizen’s action challenging a zoning amendment to permit a communications tower on public property where the municipality failed to provide sufficient information to put citizens on notice of the project)
White v. Twp. of Upper St. Clair (2002) (Township lease of public lands creates a subdivision)
Wilson v. Plumstead Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006) (A variance is properly denied under the MPC where the applicant has created his own unnecessary hardship)
Wistuk v. Lower Mt. Bethel Twshp ZHB (2007) (There is no general rule providing that failure to object to scheduling of proceedings will result in a waiver of entitlement to a deemed approval)
Wistuk v. Lower Mt. Bethel Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005) (The 45-day deemed approval period for a ZHB hearing begins on the date the ZHB closes the record, not the date it votes on an application, unless an applicant objects or provides notice to the contrary)
Yarmey v. ZHB of Forty Fort Borough (2000) (A party who files a frivolous suit must pay the other parties attorneys fees, even on appeal)
Yeager v. ZHB of the City of Allentown (2001) (Proof of “hardship” for variance)
York City Redevelopment Authority v. Ohio Blenders, Inc. (2008) (A municipality satisfies the security requirements of the Eminent Domain Code when the security is readily accessible and is sufficient to satisfy the condemnation damages)
ZHB of the City of Uniontown v. City Council of the City of Uniontown (1988) (ZHB has exclusive power to appoint the Board’s solicitor)
Zajdel v. Board of Supervisors of Peters Township (2007) (The failure of a Municipality to uniformly enforce an ordinance does not preclude later enforcement of that ordinance or invalidate the ordinance)
Zitelli v. ZHB of the Borough of Munhall (2004) (Abandonment of a non-conforming use)

DISCLAIMER:
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.