|
|
Nettleton et al. v. ZHB of Adjustment of Pittsburgh et al., 828 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Supreme Ct.. 2003), 7/22/03:
The Supreme Court clarified its decision Yocum Zoning Case, 141 A.2d 601 (Pa. 1958) and reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court. In Yocum, the Court held that where a nonconformity concerns only the encroachment of a building footprint in an area prohibited by later-enacted regulation, then a vertical addition to the building that does not extend or increase the existing nonconformity is a permitted use.
The Court specifically rejected the Commonwealth Court’s limitation of the applicability of Yocum to regulatory violations eligible for relief under the de minimis exception. Within the context of land use law, a landowner can obtain an exception to a zoning ordinance when there is only a minor or de minimis deviation from a zoning ordinance and rigid compliance is not necessary to protect the public policy concerns inherent in the ordinance. The Court also distinguished other cases as involving either a variance application or a municipal ordinance that contained a provision specifically applying yard regulations to subsequently erected stories upon existing structures. In both Yocum and the instant case, the proposed uses of the building were lawful.
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 |
