A governing body may consider non-resident testimony about similar land uses regarding a conditional use application if the testimony is both relevant and probative.
EQT Prod. Co. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, 2019 Pa. LEXIS 3059 (May 31, 2019)
An amendment to a zoning ordinance that (1) does not change the entire nature of the existing zoning district and (2) treats similarly situated tracts of land within a particular district equally is a textual amendment rather than a zoning map change.
Circleville Rd. Partners, L.P. v. Twp. of Ferguson, 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 453 (May 15, 2019)
An application for a use variance that alleges marketability concerns alone will not satisfy the unnecessary hardship threshold unless that hardship is due to unique physical conditions peculiar to the property.
Broad St. Neighborhood Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment, 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 430 (May 7, 2019)
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)
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)
Purely transient property uses are prohibited in districts where a zoning ordinance limits the use of a single-family home by a single housekeeping unit.
Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 2019 Pa. LEXIS 2363 (Apr. 26, 2019)
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)
An appeal becomes moot where the zoning permit application at issue is abandoned and the limited exceptions to the mootness doctrine do not apply.
Driscoll v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2018 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 782 (December 27, 2018)
A continuation of a nonconforming use may be prohibited by a zoning ordinance if the property was voluntarily destroyed.
Renaissance Real Estate Holdings, L.P. v. City of Phila. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 199 A.3d 977 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).
When an applicant for a special exception provides sufficient evidence establishing that the application complies with an ordinance’s general requirements, an objector opposing the application has the burden to establish, to a high degree of probability, that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
Tower Access Grp., LLC v. S. Union Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 192 A.3d 291, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018), appeal denied 2019 Pa. LEXIS 1392.