|
|
Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.
- Absent actual notice, a circumstance which would give a person reason to believe that approval had been given, such as visible construction, begins the 30 day period for the appeal of a building permit
Berryman v. Wyoming Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- Where an applicant for a variance grants the ZHB an extension to render its decision, the ZHB's failure to render a written decision by the extended date will result in a deemed approval of the application
Conceptual Development, Inc. v Hampton Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- Failure to record ordinance
Cranberry Park Assoc. v. Cranberry Twp. ZHB (2000)
- Enforcement notice not necessary when building permit is obtained by misrepresentation
Elotron v. ZHB of the City of Aliquippa (1999)
- Where a property owner receives subdivision and land development approval for subdivision into one-acre lots, but fails to complete the required improvements within 3 years, the property is subject to the provisions of the new ordinance restricting development to two-acre lots, whether or not the landowner paid taxes assessed on the one-acre lots prior to the zoning change
Gallagher v. Chestnuthill Township (2009)
- A challenge alleging procedural defects in the enactment of an ordinance may be brought more than thirty days after the ordinance's intended effective date
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Dover Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2006)
- Must challenge a zoning ordinance with 30 days of its enactment
Glen-Gery Corp. v. ZHB of Dover Twp. (2004)
- A municipal board must send each revision of a proposed zoning ordinance--including explanatory materials--to the county planning commission for recommendation, and cannot hold a public hearing on the ordinance for at least 45 days after the board’s last revision
Haller v. Lower Windsor Twp. Board of Supervisors (2005)
- Under the Municipalities Planning Code, personal notice is not required for a hearing regarding the adoption of a zoning ordinance
In Re: The Appeal of LVGC Partners, LP and Lebanon Valley Golf Club, Inc., from the Decision of the Jackson Township Zoning Hearing Board on the Petition regarding the Validity of Adoption of Ordinance No. 5-2006 (2008)
- A Zoning Hearing Board lacks authority to issue advisory opinions
Joe Darrah, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Spring Garden Twp. (2007)
- A Township that provided two-day written notice of a rescheduled hearing for a property owner’s appeal and variance request failed to provide adequate notice of the hearing date
Kline v. ZHB of the Twp. of Upper Saint Clair (2006)
- Property owners must apply for recognition of a nonconforming use
Krupa v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board (2008)
- The deemed approval in Section 508(3) of the Municipalities Planning Code applies only to the 15-day period set forth in the MPC and not to the five-day period of Section 22-303(3)(E) of the Township SALDO
LVGC Partners, LP v. Jackson Township Bd. of Supervisors (2008)
- Under MPC Section 1002-A, only public notice--not actual knowledge--begins the appeal period for a deemed approval
Magyar v. Lewis Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- A non-public amendment to a building permit can be misleading and the 30-day appeal period of such amendment does not begin until public notice of the amended permit issues
Moy v. Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board (2006)
- Procedure of submitting amendments to the zoning ordinance
Muhlenberg College v. ZHB of the City of Allentown
- Property owners adjacent to a municipality adopting a new zoning ordinance have standing to challenge both the procedural and substantive aspects of the ordinance.
Provco Partners v. Limerick Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2004)
- An applicant is entitled to approval of their final subdivision plan if their preliminary plan was approved as long as the final plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan
Rickert v. Latimore Township (2008)
- Failure to post property affected by zoning change is fatal flaw to validity of zoning ordinance
Rickert v. Latimore Twp. Board of Supervisors (2004)
- ZHB's order to Landlord to vacate tenants in four months was adequate notice
Ruiz v. New Garden Township (2004)
- Revised Section 5571(c)(5) of the Judicial Code limits the time to file procedural appeals from MPC ordinances
Rural Route Neighbors v. East Buffalo Tp. Zoning Hearing Board (2004)
- Procedure of submitting amendments to the zoning ordinance
Schadler v. ZHB of Weisenberg Twp. (2004)
- A zoning hearing board did not err by taking additional testimony and by rescinding a prior oral decision where the oral decision was made before hearing public comment
Seipstown Village, LLC v. Weisenberg Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- Applicant was not entitled to a deemed approval when the Township failed to adhere to the time periods set forth in the MPC because Applicant waived its right to a deemed approval by actively participating in eighteen hearings on the matter
Southeastern Chester County Refuse Authority (SECCRA) v. Board of Supervisors of London Grove Township (2008)
- Where an applicant makes both a variance request and a validity challenge in a single application and presents evidence regarding both in its case-in-chief, the 100 day requirement in section 908(9) of the Municipal Planning Code (MPC) does not apply
Southeastern Chester County Refuse Auth. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of London Grove Township (2006)
- The payment of a filing fee is a requirement for the perfection of land use appeal
Southern Chester County Concerned Citizens Organization v. Lower Oxford Twp. Zoning Board (2007)
- Description of how to toll “successive weeks”
Stassi v. Ranson Twp. ZHB (2001)
- Must challenge an ordinance with 30 days of its enactment
Taylor v. Harmony Twp. Board of Commissioners (2004)
- If a third party is permitted to participate, as a party, in an action before a Zoning Hearing Board, that party has status to appeal any adverse decision regardless of whether he has an adverse, direct, immediate or substantial interest in the decision as generally required to grant standing under Pennsylvania law
Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Horsham Township (2009)
- An entity with an option to lease a property for which it seeks land development approval for a wind farm has an ownership interest sufficient to constitute an “applicant” and “landowner” as required by the Municipalities Planning Code, and a municipality may grant a waiver from a provision of its ordinance if it would exact undue hardship or the request for waiver is for an innovative design that advances the purpose of the ordinance
Tioga Preservation Group v. Tioga County Planning Commission (2009)
- Property owner was entitled to a deemed approval of a special exception application because the ZHB failed to issue a written decision within 45 days of the final hearing
WeCare Organics, LLC v. ZHB of Schuylkill County (2008)
- An applicant is entitled to approval of their final subdivision plan if their preliminary plan was approved as long as the final plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan
Weiser v. Latimore Township (2008)
- There is no general rule providing that failure to object to scheduling of proceedings will result in a waiver of entitlement to a deemed approval
Wistuk v. Lower Mt. Bethel Twshp ZHB (2007)
- The 45-day deemed approval period for a ZHB hearing begins on the date the ZHB closes the record, not the date it votes on an application, unless an applicant objects or provides notice to the contrary
Wistuk v. Lower Mt. Bethel Twp. Zoning Hearing Board (2005)
- The failure of a Municipality to uniformly enforce an ordinance does not preclude later enforcement of that ordinance or invalidate the ordinance
Zajdel v. Board of Supervisors of Peters Township (2007)
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 |
