Theoretical concerns do not establish that an objector has a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in the appeal and, therefore, do not establish standing.
Worthington v. Mount Pleasant Twp., 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 533 (Jun. 6, 2019)
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)
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)
Enforcement notices for zoning violations must comply with section 616.1(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
Twp. of Robinson v. Esposito, 2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 493 (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)
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)
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)
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)