Siya Real Estate LLC v. Allentown City Zoning Hearing Bd. (2019)

Evidence that a conditional use requirement is not objective includes (1) it requires a landowner to guess at what the ordinance aims to avoid, (2) the board can use its discretion in weighing all of the evidence presented, and (3) it concerns the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Siya Real Estate LLC v. Allentown City Zoning Hearing Bd., 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 495 (May 31, 2019)

Date of Decision: 5/31/19


View Case Details »

Coppola v. Smith Twp. Bd. of Supervisors

If an individual submits a letter of objections regarding a land use application and the letter is not read into the record at the land use hearing, the individual generally cannot appeal the decision unless the individual acted in good faith and complied with the board’s rules. If the individual acted in good faith and complied with the board’s rules, it is proper practice to remand the board’s decision for an additional hearing where all parties can contest or answer the objections.

Coppola v. Smith Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 405 (May 2, 2019)

Date of Decision: 5/2/19


View Case Details »

W.J. Menkins Holdings, LLC v. Douglass Twp

A zoning hearing board may impose conditions on the approval of a variance if the conditions bear a reasonable relation to the public interest and are reasonable under the facts of the case. However, the board may not impose conditions that are outside of its authority.

W.J. Menkins Holdings, LLC v. Douglass Twp., 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 407 (May 2, 2019)

Date of Decision: 5/2/19


View Case Details »

DeAngelo v. N. Strabane Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.

A variance constitutes a use variance when it contemplates more than a reasonable adjustment from area and space requirements in order to develop a permitted use. Variance applicants must be given a fair and full opportunity to present their request for a variance to the zoning hearing board

DeAngelo v. N. Strabane Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 372, (Apr. 26, 2019)

Date of Decision: 4/17/19


View Case Details »