Key Topic: Miscellaneous

Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.

• Actual prejudice is a necessary element of “laches” when a governing board delays enforcement
  

  Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Department of Transportation (2004)

• A commercial sign advertiser has the burden of demonstrating that a zoning ordinance’s distinction between on-site and off-site advertising has no rational basis or nexus to the public’s health, safety and welfare, where the differing treatment is content neutral and does not effect a total ban on commercial speech
  

  Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Township (2006)

• Mandamus is only proper when there is a clear right and no other remedy at law
  

  Barness Land Development Co. v. Board of Supervisors of Washington Twp. (2004)

• Airport Zoning Act does not require municipalities to enact a stand-alone model airport hazard ordinance
  

  Baublitz v. Chanceford Tp. Board of Supervisors (2005)

• A township ordinance must be interpreted to give effect to all provisions and accordingly a Zoning Hearing Board’s interpretation of a Township Ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference
  

  Beers v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Towamensing Twp. (2007)

• A cell phone tower was not a permitted use in an R-1 Residential District because it was not sufficiently similar to the allowed uses of a public utility or municipal structure
  

  Cellco Partnership v. North Annville Township ZHB (2007)

• The Airport Zoning Act (“AZA”) requires municipalities with public airports to adopt and enforce airport zoning regulation
  

  Chanceford Aviation Properties, LLP v. Chanceford Township (2007)

• Regulating of clearcutting forest land
  

  Chrin Brothers, Inc. v. Williams Twp. ZHB, et al. (2003)

• ZHB members should be recused when unable to act impartially
  

  Christman v. ZHB of the Twp. of Windsor (2004)

• The determination of whether an advertising sign is an “outdoor advertising sign” or an “accessory sign” turns upon various factors and not solely upon the sign’s content
  

  City of Philadelphia v. Steen Outdoor Adver. (2007)

• Standing to apply for relief in zoning matters
  

  Collier Stone Co. v. Twp. of Collier Board of Commissioners (1999)

• Although the exercise of a purchase option in a lease did not effectuate a legal subdivision allowing for relation back to the previous ordinance, lessee was entitled to relief under the modification provisions of the MPC and Township Ordinance
  

  Dubois Dutch, LLC v. Sandy Township Board of Supervisors and Guido (2007)

• A party seeking a right of way over private land is not required to seek permission from the county who holds an open space easement in the land
  

  Ephrata Area School District v. Lancaster County (2005)

• Governmental Immunity
  

  Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Twp. (2003)

• A planning commission is merely a recommendatory body, the final decisions for zoning rests in the elected officials
  

  Gratton v. Conte (1950)

• 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)

• DEP storm water permits were permissible policy, not a regulation
  

  Home Builders Asso. of Chester, et al. v. Comm. PA, DEP et al. (2003)

• An ordinance should be read together and use common understanding of words to interpret
  

  In re: Application of Brandywine Realty Trust to the Newtown Twp. ZHB (2004)

• Condemnation Hearing must follow the Sunshine Act’s procedures
  

  In re Condemnation by West Chester Area School District (2001)

• A municipal authority's power of eminent domain includes the power to acquire private sewer system and allows condemnation of a lesser estate than fee simple
  

  In re Condemnation (Newport Homeowner's Assn.) (2005)

• A state agency must comply with local zoning and land use restrictions in the absence of a clear legislative intent to give the agency preemptive land use powers
  

  Kightlinger v. Bradford Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)

• Encroaching tree roots do not create a prescriptive easement
  

  Koresko v. Farley, et al. (2004)

• The Construction Code Act does not authorize deemed approvals for permits relating to the construction of billboards. Billboard LED conversions may be subject to conditional use and site plan approval under the MPC and local zoning ordinances.
  

  Lamar Advertising Company v. Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board (2007)

• Zoning ordinances validity under FHA and ADA
  

  Marriott Senior Living Services, Inc. v. Springfield Twp. (1999)

• A township’s condemnation of land for “recreational and open space purposes” was allowed because the evidence supported the conclusion that it was taken for recreational purposes and the township did not rely on the Open Space Lands Act to condemn the land
  

  Middletown Twp. v Lands of Stone (2005)

• Solicitor’s fees for plan review
  

  Mountain Village v. The Board of Supervisors of Longswamp Twp. (2003)

• To establish entitlement to an injunction, a municipality needs only to prove a violation of its ordinance, not irreparable harm to the municipality.
  

  Paupack Township, et al. v. Lake Moc-A-Tek, Inc., et al. (2004)

• MPC Section 617.2 is constitutional (allowing recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs against the violator) and losing parties have the burden of showing the unreasonableness of the requested fee award
  

  South Whitehall Twp. v. Karoly (2005)

• The US Supreme Court is the only federal court that may void a state court
  

  Teed v. Hilltown Township (2004)

• In determining whether property should be deemed an agricultural security area, a governing body should focus on whether the land is appropriate for agricultural uses now and in the future, not whether the existing or proposed use comports with current zoning
  

  41 Valley Associates v. London Grove Twp. Board of Supervisors (2006)

• The construction of billboards is not a miscellaneous use structure related to residential structures under the Construction Code Act. The construction of billboards does not require land development approval under the MPC because it is construction on a small scale.
  

  Warminster Fiberglass Co., Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township (2007)

• Even after a hazardous waste impoundment is closed, it is still considered to be a use of the land
  

  Warner Jenkinson Company v. ZHB of Robeson Twp. (2004)

• Township lease of public lands creates a subdivision
  

  White v. Twp. of Upper St. Clair (2002)

• 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)

• Abandonment of a non-conforming use
  

  Zitelli v. ZHB of the Borough of Munhall (2004)

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