Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions

Marquise Inv., Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh (2010)

Where applicant demonstrates compliance with objective criteria in zoning ordinance, burden shifts to objectors to prove with a high degree of probability that proposed use will have abnormally adverse effects.

Marquise Inv., Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 11 A.3d 607 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).


View Case Details »

HHI Trucking & Supply, Inc. v. Borough Council (2010)

Conditions imposed upon a conditional use approval must be reasonable – meaning the condition must relate to a zoning ordinance standard or be authorized by the MPC, and must be based on facts supported by the record.

HHI Trucking & Supply, Inc. v. Borough Council, 990 A.2d 152 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).


View Case Details »

Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Twp. of New Sewickley (2016)

This decision discusses the quality of evidence required for objectors to meet their burden of proof of adverse impacts that will result from a proposed use. The court also dismisses the objectors' challenge to the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance where the objector raised the argument on appeal rather than by filing a challenge in accordance with the MPC.

Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Twp. of New Sewickley, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 33 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).

Date of Decision: 1/7/16


View Case Details »

Whitehall Fiduciary, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2012)

Condition on approval was unreasonable where it required the installation of certain improvements during an earlier phase when normally those improvements would not otherwise be required until a later phase.

Whitehall Fiduciary, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 49 A.3d 945 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).


View Case Details »

In re: Appeal of Deemed Approved Conditional Use (2009)

A neighboring landowner successfully challenged a conditional use permit – granted by deemed approval based on the municipality’s failure to issue a written decision – as the permit was improper where the proposed use was prohibited by the applicable zoning ordinance and the landowners failed to obtain seven necessary variances prior to filing their application for conditional use permit.

In re: Appeal of Deemed Approved Conditional Use, 975 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Commw. 2009).

Date of Decision: 5/19/09


View Case Details »