When the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acquires proceeds from leasing state forest lands for mineral extraction, the Commonwealth must direct such proceeds toward the maintenance and conservation of public natural resources.
Pa. Envtl. Def. Found. v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017)
Section 917 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) is not a statute of limitations, but an entitlement to file a land development plan within six months or longer of the granting of a special exception, as may be provided in the governing ordinances.
1050 Ashbourne Assocs., LLC v. Cheltenham Twp. Bd. of Comm’rs, 167 A.3d 828 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)
Zoning boards are not permitted to add requirements that are not specifically mentioned in the zoning ordinance. The Court also stated the party asserting merger of one lot to another that is noncompliant with certain zoning requirements must prove the land owner’s intent to merge those lots by “overt, unequivocal, physical manifestation” of such intent.
In re Jerrehian, 155 A.3d 674 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)
The merger of lots doctrine is only applicable in municipalities that have a merger of lots provision in their land use ordinance.
Loughran v. Valley View Developers, Inc., 145 A.3d 815 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)
A township may not utilize the most restrictive map in determining existence and location of a floodplain, but instead must comply with the plain language of the zoning ordinance; and a developer may not force a municipality to accept dedication of a private road as public.
Stingray, L.P. v. Concord Township Zoning Hearing Board, 975 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
Irrespective of municipal planning and zoning for agricultural preservation, a municipality is without discretion to deny a request for creation of an agricultural security area under the Agricultural Security Law when the property satisfies the soils, zoning and agricultural use factors set forth in the Act.
In re: Agricultural Security Area in East Lampeter Township, 974 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
An ordinance was found to be unconstitutionally vague when it failed to define the phrase “state recognized holidays” and gave no reference to any ordinance or law defining such phrase.
Boron v. Pulaski Township Bd. of Supervisors, 960 A.2d 880 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
If adjoining lots are under common ownership when a zoning ordinance is passed that renders them undersized, then the lots are presumed to have merged and the burden is on the landowner to rebut that presumption.
Cottone v. ZHB of Polk Township, 954 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Appellants were denied the right to intervene because they no longer had any interest in the property.
Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates v. Upper Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
A commercial sign advertiser has the burden of demonstrating that a zoning ordinance’s distinction between on-site and off-site advertising has no rational basis or nexus to the public’s health, safety and welfare, where the differing treatment is content neutral and does not effect a total ban on commercial speech.
Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Township, 909 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).