Condition imposed on approval for ethanol plant requiring impact fee based on amount of ethanol produced was not permitted under the MPC.
In re Appeal of Maibach, LLC, 26 A.3d 1213 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
- 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
Municipal Capital Improvement; Impact Fees
Trojnacki v. Board of Supervisors of Solebury Twp. (2004)
J. Trojnacki v. Board of Supervisor Solebury Twp, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), 842 A.2d 503
Soliday v. Haycock Township, Pa. Commw. (2001)
Soliday v. Haycock Township, 785 A.2d 139 Commonwealth Court, (October 19, 2001)
Metro Bank v. Board of Commissioners of Manheim Township, Pa. Commw. (2015)
"Pass-by trips" may be included when calculating impact fees associated with Section 505-A(a)(2) of the MPC and Transportation Capital Improvements Plans.
Metro Bank v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Manheim Twp., 120 A.3d 426 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013)
Impact fees must be roughly proportional to the impact of the project and have a nexus to the impact of the project.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).