|
|
In Re: Brickstone Realty Corp.,
789 A.2d 333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001)
Landowner entered into an agreement with a commercial party to build a hotel. The zoning ordinance permitted hotels in this district by special exception. Objecting to the developer's subsequent application for a special exception, residents argued that the use would create undue traffic congestion. The zoning hearing board agreed and denied the application. Developer appealed and won approval for the application. Objectors appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Reinforcing existing precedent, the Commonwealth Court found that the zoning hearing board erred by accepting lay witness "expressions of concern for increased traffic." Rather, objectors are required to demonstrate "concrete evidence of a high probability that the inn would generate traffic that would . . . threaten the health and safety of the community." The Commonwealth Court also concluded that the concrete or substantial evidence standard ordinarily would require the objecting party to show "traffic counts, accident records, and expert" testimony to meet its burden of proof.
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 |
