Allowing patrons to engage in sexual activity was not an accessory use to the operation of a restaurant.
MAJ Entertainment, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 947 A.2d 841 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER: NOT A 'SEMI-PUBLIC' USE
McMahon v. Kingston Township Board of Supervisors, 771 A. 2d 96 (Pa. Commw. April 5, 2001).
Under the relevant zoning ordinance, a venue for events was not an accessory use for a large mansion in which Applicants resided in only a small portion.
Barnabei v. Chadds Ford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 118 A.3d 17 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER: PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996.
Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, L.P. v. ZHB of Easttown Township, 248 F. 3d 101 ( 3d. Cir., April 25, 2001).
A sign code is unconstitutional where it regulates signs based on their content, regardless of whether the sign code favors one speaker over another.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015).
A crematory and funeral home are primary uses of land and not customary and incidental to a cemetery use under the Philadelphia Zoning Code. The natural expansion doctrine does not apply to a new and different use.
Arter v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment,
916 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
Pearson v. Newlin Township ZHB, 765 A.2d 1187 (Pa. Commw., January 19, 2001).
"Family" may be legally defined as "[a] person living independently or a group of persons living as a single household unit using housekeeping facilities in common, but not to include more than three persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption" in a zoning ordinance.
Schwartz v. Phila. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 126 A.3d 1032 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).
A church has the burden of showing that its daycare center is a fundamental religious activity under the Commonwealth’s Religious Freedom Protection Act.
Ridley Park United Methodist Church v. Ridley Park Borough Zoning Hearing Board, 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 134
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER: NOT A 'PUBLIC UTILITY'
Pennsylvania Cellular Telephone Corp. v. Buck Township ZHB, 127 F.Supp. 2d. 635 (M.D. Pa., January 17, 2001).