|
|
Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.
- To reject a conditional use application, there must be evidence to support the denial
Borough of Perkasie v. Moulton Builders, Inc. (2004)
- The Borough exceeded its authority when it denied a conditional use application for the extraction of natural gas, since natural gas is a mineral under the MPC and the Oil and Gas Act preempts the Borough Ordinance with regard to the location of an oil or gas well
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of the Borough of Oakmont (2007)
- A neighboring landowner successfully challenged a conditional use permit – granted by deemed approval based on the municipality's failure to issue a written decision – as the permit was improper where the proposed use was prohibited by the applicable zoning ordinance and the landowners failed to obtain seven necessary variances prior to filing their application for conditional use permit
In re: Appeal of Deemed Approved Conditional Use (2009)
- Governing board may not deny a conditional use application on grounds of pre-existing dangerous traffic condition or in absence of sufficient evidence of a high probability that the proposed use substantially threatens the welfare of the community
In re: Appeal of the Cutler Group, Inc. (2005)
- Applicant’s conditional use application was denied because it failed to comply with all the requirements of the ordinance
K. Hovnanian Pennsylvania Acquisitions, LLC v. Newtown Township Board of Supervisors (2008)
- The conditions on a conditional use must relate to the health, safety or welfare of the community
LTS Development, Inc. v. Middle Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors (2004)
- A conditional use permit cannot be challenged on a procedural basis more than thirty days after its approval
Luke v. Cataldi (2005)
- 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)
- Once the requirements of the ordinance are satisfied, objectors bear the burden of proof
Pennsylvania Bureau of Corrections v. City of Pittsburgh (1987)
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 |
