The Construction Code Act does not authorize deemed approvals for permits relating to the construction of billboards. Billboard LED conversions may be subject to conditional use and site plan approval under the MPC and local zoning ordinances.
Lamar Advertising Company v. Monroeville Zoning Hearing Board, 936 A.2d 994 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).
Although the exercise of a purchase option in a lease did not effectuate a legal subdivision allowing for relation back to the previous ordinance, lessee was entitled to relief under the modification provisions of the MPC and Township Ordinance.
Dubois Dutch, LLC v. Sandy Township Board of Supervisors and Guido, (Pa. 2007).
The Airport Zoning Act (“AZA”) requires municipalities with public airports to adopt and enforce airport zoning regulations.
Chanceford Aviation Properties, LLP v. Chanceford Township, 923 A.2d 1099 (Pa. 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).
The use of an oscillating searchlight used to attract customers to a business was specifically prohibited by a Township Zoning Ordinance.
Sutliff Enterprises, Inc. v. Silver Spring Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 933 A.2d. 1079 (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).
A municipality may not compel the payment of real estate taxes or municipal obligations through the denial of licenses and permits required for real property development unless such power is conferred by statute.
Trigona v. Lender, 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007)
The determination of whether an advertising sign is an “outdoor advertising sign” or an “accessory sign” turns upon various factors and not solely upon the sign’s content.
City of Philadelphia v. Steen Outdoor Adver., 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 320
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).
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).