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)
Date of Decision: 8/17/16
- Browse by Topic:
- Appellate Procedure
- Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions
- Eminent Domain
- Land Use Appeal
- Miscellaneous
- Municipal Capital Improvement; Impact Fees
- Municipal Procedure
- Nonconformities
- Planned Residential Development
- Preemption of Local Ordinances
- Regulation of Particular Uses
- Subdivision and Land Development
- Takings
- Variances
- Zoning Validity Challenges
Miscellaneous
In re Jerrehian
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)
Date of Decision: 3/6/17
1050 Ashbourne Assocs., LLC v. Cheltenham Twp. Bd. of Comm’rs
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)
Date of Decision: 8/1/17
Riverfront Dev. Group, LLC v. City of Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Bd. (2015)
Where language in a zoning ordinance is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the applicant.
Riverfront Dev. Group, LLC v. City of Harrisburg Zoning Hearing Bd., 109 A.3d 358 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
Stingray, L.P. v. Concord Township Zoning Hearing Board (2009)
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).
Date of Decision: 6/3/09
In re: Agricultural Security Area in East Lampeter Township (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).
Date of Decision: 5/27/09
Boron v. Pulaski Township Bd. of Supervisors (2008)
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).
Date of Decision: 11/19/08
Cottone v. ZHB of Polk Township (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).
Date of Decision: 8/15/08
Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates v. Upper Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board (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).
Date of Decision: 1/8/08
Warminster Fiberglass Co., Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township (2007)
The construction of billboards is not a miscellaneous use structure related to residential structures under the Construction Code Act. The construction of billboards does not require land development approval under the MPC because it is construction on a small scale.
Warminster Fiberglass Co., Inc. v. Upper Southampton Township, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).