|
|
Cases are listed below in alphabetical order:
*Click on case name to review case summary.
- A crematory and funeral home are primary uses of land and not customary and incidental to a cemetery use under the Philadelphia Zoning Code
Arter v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (2007)
- Non-conforming uses, special exceptions, and conditional uses
Finegan v. Board of Supervisors of Earl Twp. (2003)
- The periodic non-use of a signpost does not constitute substantial evidence of actual abandonment of the nonconforming use of the property
Finn v. Zoning Hearing Board of Beaver Borough (2005)
- In order to establish a valid, nonconforming use, the landowner has the burden of demonstrating legal use of the property for the activity in question prior to enactment of the zoning in question; to demonstrate right to variance by estoppel, landowner must produce evidence that without such variance, the property would be rendered valueless
Hafner v. Zoning Hearing Board of Allen Township (2009)
- Analysis of whether proposed use is sufficiently similar to previous non-conforming use
Jay-Lee, Inc. v. The Municipality of Kingston ZHB (2001)
- Expansion of a non-conforming use was permissible when opening an establishment to the general public
Lench v. ZHB of Adjustments of the City of Pittsburgh (2004)
- Non-conforming uses- signs
Loduca v. ZHB of the Borough of Danville (2000)
- A nonconforming use can be expanded as of right when the nonconformity is not increased. However, a new structure entirely different from the nonconforming use cannot be constructed without obtaining a variance
Narberth JKST Tennis Club, Inc. v. Narberth Borough Zoning Hearing Board (2007)
- Extension of a non-conforming use
Nettleton et al. v. ZHB of Adjustment of Pittsburgh et al. (2003)
- In determining whether a variance may be granted under the Philadelphia Zoning Code, all three factors must be considered: (1) unique hardship to the property; (2) no adverse effect on the public health, safety or general welfare; and (3) the variance will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief at the least modification possible
North Chestnut Hill Neighbors v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia and Woodmere Art Museum (2007)
- A dimensional variance is proper in rebuilding or replacement projects to prevent the extinguishment of a non-conforming use
Robertson v. Henry Clay Township Hearing Bd. (2006)
- The "doctrine of normal expansion" explores the similarities of uses, not industries
Shaner v. Schuylkill County Zoning Hearing Board (2004)
- A municipality seeking to show abandonment of a non-conforming use must demonstrate that landowner intended to abandon and actually abandoned the non-conforming use
Simonitis v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Swoyersville Borough (2004)
- The use of an oscillating searchlight used to attract customers to a business was specifically prohibited by a Township Zoning Ordinance
Sutliff Enterprises, Inc. v. Silver Spring Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2007)
- 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 |
