Cases are listed below in chronological order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.
- Applicant who succeeds in challenging the zoning ordinance cannot appeal zoning hearing board's advisory opinion on site-specific relief where applicant withdraws plans for site-specific relief during hearings on validity challenge.
Appeal of Chester County Outdoor, LLC (2013)
- Transfer of objector's property during pending appeal resulted in objector's loss of standing and dismissal of appeal.
Bradley v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of New Milford (2013)
- Trial court may not order objector to post bond where the appeal to the trial court was filed by the applicant rather than the objector.
PPM Atl. Renewable v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Bd. (2013)
- Appeal of approval moot where applicant essentially abandons appealed approvals by obtaining new approvals for the same project.
DeFilippo v. Cranberry Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (2012)
- When reviewing a deemed approval, the trial court must not conduct appellate review; rather, de novo review is required and the trial court must make its own findings.
DeSantis v. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2012)
- Renumbering of section numbers from time of advertisement to time of adoption does not violate due process rights. Failure to record an ordinance in the ordinance book within the statutorily required time period renders the ordinance ineffective, but not invalid.
Bartkowski Inv. Group v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Marple Twp. (2011)
- Doctrine of collateral estoppel applied in appeal of variance where the trial court previously ruled upon a similar variance application for the same property.
Ulsh v. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2011)
- Settlement agreement cannot allow for development of property that was not the subject of the land use decision that was appealed.
BPG Real Estate Investors-Straw Party II, L.P. v. Bd. of Supervisors (2010)
- Commonwealth Court has original jurisdiction for challenges filed by the Attorney General to township ordinances under the ACRE statute.
Commonwealth v. Locust Twp. (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
Hionis v. Concord Township (2009)
- Applicant waived its right to challenge an objector's standing on appeal where the applicant failed to challenge the objector's standing before the zoning hearing board.
Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2009)
- 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.
Commonwealth v. East Brunswick Township (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
Harman v. Forest County Conservation District and Planning Bd. (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
McDonald v. Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (2008)
- A party not directly involved in a land use action may intervene only as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
McLoughlin v. ZHB of Newtown Township (2008)
- A notice of appeal was quashed for failing to set forth the basis for the appeal
Therres v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Rose Valley (2008)
- 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
Atticks v. Lancaster Township Zoning Hearing Board (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 Economy Borough Municipal Authority (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 Borough v. Lower Merion Township (2007)
- Settlement negotiations on an appeal from the ZHB must include the ZHB
Becker v. Sewickley Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- Court of Common Pleas did not abuse discretion in requiring bond under Section 1003-A of the MPC for frivolous appeal
D. Kasun Associates v. Manheim Twp. Board of Commissioners (2005)
- The capricious disregard standard of review applies to the review of zoning hearing board decisions
Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- Governing board lacks standing to appeal when its inaction results in a deemed approval of an application
Board of Supervisors of East Rockhill Twp. v. Mager (2004)
- Objectors are not required to be notified of land use appeals
Boerner v. Hazle Township ZHB (2004)
- The standard of review for appellate courts
Borough of Jenkintown v. Board of Commissioners of Abington Twp. (2004)
- The compensation for a taking should be determined by a board of viewer, not raised in preliminary objections
In Re: The Condemnation by the County of Allegheny (2004)
- Standing of a municipality to appeal
Brendel v. Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Borough of Ridgeway (2001)
- Persons who may appeal the grant of a variance
Orie v. ZHB of the Borough of Beaver (2001)
- A party who files a frivolous suit must pay the other parties attorneys fees, even on appeal
Yarmey v. ZHB of Forty Fort Borough (2000)
- Persons who may appeal the grant of a variance
Leoni v. Whitepain Twp. ZHB (1998)
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.
Back to Top