Cases are listed below in chronological order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.
- Procedural challenge not entitled to deemed approval.
Gibraltar Rock, Inc. v. New Hanover Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2013)
- Procedural requirements for adoption of zoning amendment are less strict under Second Class City Code than the MPC.
Lamar Advantage GP Co., LLC v. City of Pittsburgh (2013)
- Notices of decisions should include the date of the decision or at least a cover letter with a date for the transmission of the notice of decision.
Schmader v. Cranberry Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (2013)
- Zoning amendment that purports to be a text amendment can be considered a map amendment where the amendment is overly narrow and specific to the point it could only be applied to one property and no other lots in that zoning district.
Shaw v. Twp. of Upper St. Clair Zoning Hearing Bd. (2013)
- Burden on applicant for special exception is to demonstrate compliance with objective criteria in the zoning ordinance.
Anter Assocs. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Concord Twp. (2011)
- Zoning permit cannot be denied based on lack of compliance with ordinance enacted under the authority of a statute other than the MPC.
Orange Stones Co. v. Borough of Hamburg (2011)
- For developments occurring across municipal boundaries, municipality may require that all of its zoning requirements for the project must be satisfied by those portions of the project in that municipality unless otherwise permitted within its zoning ordinance.
Hamilton Hills Group, LLC v. Hamilton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2010)
- 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 (5 years under the current version of the MPC), 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
Gallagher v. Chestnuthill Township (2009)
- Ordinances that have been adopted with procedural defects may survive procedural challenge where evidence indicates that the defects are harmless, the public has relied significantly upon the validity of the ordinances for several years and the public benefits from avoiding the chaos of finding the ordinances to be void ab initio.
Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2009)
- Objector cannot argue decision should be reversed for improper notice of public hearing where objector appeared and participated at the public hearing and the costs to the municipality of conducting another hearing with the same expected result are unreasonable.
In re McGlynn (2009)
- Landowner may submit multiple inconsistent plans for the same property that are pending simultaneously.
Philomeno & Salamone v. Bd. of Supervisors (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
Quest Land Development Group, LLC v. Township of Lower Heidelberg (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
Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Horsham Township (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
Tioga Preservation Group v. Tioga County Planning Commission (2009)
- 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
Hellam Township v. Hellam Township Zoning Hearing Board (2008)
- Under the Municipalities Planning Code, personal notice is not required for a hearing regarding the adoption of a zoning ordinance
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)
- Property owners must apply for recognition of a nonconforming use
Krupa v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board (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
LVGC Partners, LP v. Jackson Township Bd. of Supervisors (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
Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Clarks Summit Borough (2008)
- Notice of a hearing was not properly served when it was not sent to the attorney of record
Panzone v. Fayette County ZHB (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 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 Authority (SECCRA) v. Board of Supervisors of London Grove Township (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
WeCare Organics, LLC v. ZHB of Schuylkill County (2008)
- A Zoning Hearing Board lacks authority to issue advisory opinions
Joe Darrah, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Spring Garden Twp. (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 Twshp ZHB (2007)
- The failure of a Municipality to uniformly enforce an ordinance does not preclude later enforcement of that ordinance or invalidate the ordinance
Zajdel v. Board of Supervisors of Peters Township (2007)
- 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
Kline v. ZHB of the Twp. of Upper Saint Clair (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
Moy v. Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board (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
Southeastern Chester County Refuse Auth. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of London Grove Township (2006)
- 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
Conceptual Development, Inc. v Hampton Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (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
Haller v. Lower Windsor Twp. Board of Supervisors (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
Hanover Healthcare Plus, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Penn Twp. (2005)
- Under MPC Section 1002-A, only public notice--not actual knowledge--begins the appeal period for a deemed approval
Magyar v. Lewis 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
Seipstown Village, LLC v. Weisenberg Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (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.
Steeley v. Richland Twp. (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
Wistuk v. Lower Mt. Bethel Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- ZHB members should be recused when unable to act impartially
Christman v. ZHB of the Twp. of Windsor (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.
Provco Partners v. Limerick Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2004)
- Failure to post property affected by zoning change is fatal flaw to validity of zoning ordinance
Rickert v. Latimore Twp. Board of Supervisors (2004)
- ZHB's order to Landlord to vacate tenants in four months was adequate notice
Ruiz v. New Garden Township (2004)
- Procedure of submitting amendments to the zoning ordinance
Schadler v. ZHB of Weisenberg Twp. (2004)
- Must challenge an ordinance with 30 days of its enactment
Taylor v. Harmony Twp. Board of Commissioners (2004)
- Ordinance interpretation should be in favor of the landowner
Phillips v. ZHB of Montour Twp. (2001)
- Notice requirements for building permits
Rabenold v. ZHB of the Borough of Palmerton (2001)
- Description of how to toll “successive weeks”
Stassi v. Ranson Twp. ZHB (2001)
- Public notice requirements of MPC are mandatory
Valianatos v. ZHB of Richmond Twp. (2001)
- Failure to record ordinance
Cranberry Park Assoc. v. Cranberry Twp. ZHB (2000)
- Procedure of submitting amendments to the zoning ordinance
Muhlenberg College v. ZHB of the City of Allentown (2000)
- Standing to apply for relief in zoning matters
Collier Stone Co. v. Twp. of Collier Board of Commissioners (1999)
- Enforcement notice not necessary when building permit is obtained by misrepresentation
Elotron v. ZHB of the City of Aliquippa (1999)
- Guidelines for interpretation of uses
Rappaport v. ZHB of Allentown (1996)
- ZHB has exclusive power to appoint the Board’s solicitor
ZHB of the City of Uniontown v. City Council of the City of Uniontown (1988)
- A planning commission is merely a recommendatory body, the final decisions for zoning rests in the elected officials
Gratton v. Conte (1950)
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