|
|
Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.
- 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
Alexander v. Zoning Hearing Board of Mount Joy Township (2008)
- Enactment of zoning ordinance is a legislative act
Apgar v. ZHB of Manheim (1995)
- 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
Appeal of: Rural Route Neighbors (2008)
- 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
Arbor Resources Limited Liability Co. v. Nockamixon Township (2009)
- Rezoning distinguished from validity challenges
Baker v. Chartiers Twp. (1994)
- Size and deviation from comprehensive plan are factors to determine "spot zoning"
Baker v. Chartiers Twp. ZHB (1996)
- 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. (2002)
- A Federal law prohibits a zoning ordinance that "substantially burdens" religious exercise
Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Twp (2004)
- A municipality may impose disparate restrictions on equivalent uses within different zones
Crystal Forest Associates v. Buckingham Twp. Supervisors (2004)
- Non-agricultural conditional and accessory uses do not undercut the validity of a Zoning Ordinance enacted to preserve active and productive agricultural lands.
Ethan-Michael, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Supervisors (2007)
- A sign ordinance limiting signs to twenty five square feet does not unconstitutionally exclude “industry standard” sized billboards
Exeter Twp. v. Exeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006)
- Lot size requirements- must be economically reasonable
Fisher v. Viola, Jr., et. al. (2001)
- 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
Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford 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
Glenside Center, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board (2009)
- 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)
- 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
Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania, Inc. v. College Township Council (2006)
- Reverse spot zoning
In re Appeal of Realen Valley Forge Greens Associates. (2003)
- Uses in zoning ordinance prevail over uses stated in the comprehensive plan
In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates (2001)
- 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: Schieber (2007)
- Exclusionary zoning of public schools
Jim Thorpe Area School District v. Kidder Twp. (1999)
- An ordinance requiring connections to public water is not a “state created danger”
Johnson v. The Township of Plumcreek
- 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
Keinath v. Township of Edgmont (2009)
- 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 v. Borough of Deer Lake Zoning Hearing Board (2007)
- Zoning for agricultural preservation districts survives multiple challenges
McGonigle v. Lower Heidelberg Twp. ZHB (2004)
- Communications towers are protected under the Federal Telecommunications Act
Omnipoint Communications Enterprises v. ZHB of Easttown Township (2001)
- A municipality does not have the power to compel the underground installation of electric utilities
Pa. Power Co. v. Twp. of Pine (2007)
- Multi-step, multi-factor test and scope of review for partial exclusionary zoning of multi-family dwellings
Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Providence Twp. (1978)
- A third party seeking to challenge a judicially-approved settlement of a zoning appeal must intervene in the underlying action to have standing
The Boeing Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Ridley Tp. (2003)
- 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. Township of Upper St. Clair (2009)
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.
Back to Top |
