If at least one ground for denial is based on clear noncompliance with the ordinance, and that noncompliance is an objective, legitimate, and substantive planning issue, appeals of plan denials and preliminary subdivision and land development plans will be denied.
Delchester Developers, L.P. v. London Grove Twp. Bd. Supervisors, 161 A.3d 1106 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)
Zoning decisions are not final until a written decision is issued. Therefore, the 30-day appeal limitation period does not run until a written decision is issued.
First Ave. Partners v. City of Pittsburgh Planning Comm’n, 151 A.3d 715 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)
Appeals from land use decisions must be brought within 30 days of the adverse decision, unless the claim asserts an unconstitutional deprivation of due process.
Monger v. Upper Leacock Twp., 132 A.3d 585 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)
When a municipality resolves a land use appeal by Court-approved settlement agreement, prior to newly elected Supervisors taking office, the new Board is bound by the settlement agreement unless there were prior objections by a party to the land use appeal and/or there is a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
T.H. Properties, L.P. v. Upper Salford Township Board of Supervisors, No. 69 C.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 178 (Pa. Commw. February 11, 2009).
The Boeing Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Ridley Tp.,
822 A.2d 153 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003)
To have standing, one must be "aggrieved," meaning the party must show that it (or one of its members, if an association) has an interest that is substantial, direct, and immediate, and not merely an interest common to all citizens.
Armstead v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Phila. & Phila., 115 A.3d 390 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
Thirty-day appeal period for zoning permits is tolled where appellant alleges and proves that he had no notice, knowledge or reason to believe that the permit had been issued.
In re Appeal of Broad Mt. Dev. Co., LLC from the Decision of the Butler Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 17 A.3d 434 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
Mandamus action only available where party is clearly entitled to a permit.
Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 32 A.3d 287 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
Res judicata barred issues previously litigated by the same property owner for the same property
Callowhill Ctr. Assocs., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2 A.3d 802 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
When a conflict of interest exists at municipal level, trial court should order the municipal agency conducting the hearing to continue after resolving the conflict rather than supplant the municipal agency with a hearing officer.
HYK Constr. Co. v. Smithfield Twp., 8 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).