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 Twp., (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 838 A.2d 843 (2002)
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.,
411 F.3d 399 (3rd Cir. 2005)
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
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,
872 A.2d 234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
Mountain Village v. The Board of Super. of Longswamp Twp., 828 A.2d 411 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 6/12/03:
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).
MPC Section 617.2 is constitutional (allowing recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs against the violator) and losing parties have the burden of showing the unreasonableness of the requested fee award.
South Whitehall Twp. v. Karoly,
891 A.2d 780 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), Petition for Allowance of Appeal denied, 906 A.2d 546 (Pa. 2006).