Warner Jenkinson Company v. ZHB of Robeson Twp.
863 A.2d 139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
Miscellaneous
41 Valley Associates v. London Grove Twp. Board of Supervisors (2006)
In determining whether property should be deemed an agricultural security area, a governing body should focus on whether the land is appropriate for agricultural uses now and in the future, not whether the existing or proposed use comports with current zoning.
41 Valley Associates v. London Grove Twp. Board of Supervisors,
882 A.2d 5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), app. granted, 898 A.2d 1073 (Pa. 2006).
Chrin Brothers, Inc. v. Williams Twp. ZHB, et al., Pa. Commw. (2003)
Chrin Brothers, Inc. v. Williams Twp. ZHB, et al., 815 A.2d 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 2/3/03:
Adams Outdoor Advertising, LP. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Township, Pa. Commw. (2006)
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).
Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Township, Pa. Commw. (2003)
Gramlich v. Lower Southampton Twp., (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 838 A.2d 843 (2002)
Beers v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Towamensing Twp., Pa. Commw. (2007)
A township ordinance must be interpreted to give effect to all provisions and accordingly a Zoning Hearing Board’s interpretation of a Township Ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference.
Beers v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Towamensing Twp., 933 A.2d 1067 (Pa. Commw. 2007).
Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Hampton Twp. (2005)
Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Hampton Twp.,
411 F.3d 399 (3rd Cir. 2005)
Home Builders Association of Chester, et al. v. Commonwealth PA, DEP et al., Pa. Commw. (2003)
Home Builders Asso. of Chester, et al. v. Comm. PA, DEP et al., 828 A.2d 446 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 7/9/03:
Note: Affirmed 844 A.2d 1227
Cellco Partnership v. North Annville Township ZHB, Pa. Commw. (2007)
A cell phone tower was not a permitted use in an R-1 Residential District because it was not sufficiently similar to the allowed uses of a public utility or municipal structure.
Cellco Partnership v. North Annville Township ZHB, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
Kightlinger v. Bradford Twp. Zoning Hearing Board, Pa. Commw. (2005)
Kightlinger v. Bradford Twp. Zoning Hearing Board,
872 A.2d 234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)