Paupack Township, et al. v. Lake Moc-A-Tek, Inc., et al.
863 A.2d 615 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
Miscellaneous
Vitti et al v. ZHB of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh and Bethlehem Haven (1998)
The MPC does not generally apply to the City of Pittsburgh.
Vitti et. al, v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh and Bethlehem Haven, 710 A2d. 653, Pa. Cmwlth (1998)
Trigona v. Lender (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)
Teed v. Hilltown Township (2004)
Teed v. Hilltown Township
2004 WL 1149486 (E.D.Pa.)
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).
Warner Jenkinson Company v. ZHB of Robeson Twp. (2004)
Warner Jenkinson Company v. ZHB of Robeson Twp.
863 A.2d 139 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
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)