Applicant for validity variance need not prove all elements of a variance, but must prove zoning ordinance is restrictive to the point of confiscation.
Hunt v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 61 A.3d 380 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
Takings
In re: Condemnation by the County of Berks, a Third Class County, of Lands and all Improvements thereon for Public Recreation Places and Public Parks, Pa. Commw. (2007)
An entity lacks standing as a condemnee in an eminent domain proceeding if it has no legal or equitable property interest in the property being condemned.
In re: Condemnation by the County of Berks, a Third Class County, of Lands and all Improvements thereon for Public Recreation Places and Public Parks, 914 A.2d 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority v. Fuller, Pa. Commw. (2004)
Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority v. Fuller,
862 A.2d 159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
Smucker v. Lancaster City Planning Commission, Pa. Commw. (2013)
Facts indicative of "vacant" property under Urban Redevelopment Law.
Smucker v. Lancaster City Planning Comm’n, 74 A.3d 349 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
In the Matter of Condemnation of Property in Perry Township (2007)
A municipality can authorize a declaration of taking by the adoption of a resolution.
In the Matter of Condemnation of Property in Perry Township, 925 A.2d 215 (Pa. 2007).
Marple Newtown v. Marple Newtown School District, Pa. Commw. (2004)
Marple Newtown v. Marple Newtown School District
856 A.2d 225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
In re Condemnation Proceeding by the Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia (1839 N. Eighth St.), 938 A.2d 341 (Pa. 2007)
Where the Lemon test is implicated in condemnation proceedings because a religious entity is involved, courts must look at the principal purpose of the use and how and why the religious entity is involved. A condemnation will not fail simply because a religious entity is involved as the entanglement must be prohibitively excessive to warrant failure under the Lemon test.
In re 1839 North Eighth Street,
891 A.2d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), app. granted, 903 A.2d 539 (Pa. 2006)
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by: In re Condemnation Proceeding by the Redevelopment Auth. of Phila. (1839 N. Eighth St.), 938 A.2d 341 (Pa. 2007)
Nolen v. Newtown Township, Pa. Commw. (2004)
Nolen v. Newtown Twp., 854 A.2d 705 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
In re: Condemnation of Springboro Area Water Authority, Pa. Commw. (2006)
A variance is justified when the natural conditions of the land prevent reasonable development.
Solebury Township v. Solebury Township Zoning Hearing Board, 914 A.2d 972 (Pa. Cmwth. 2007).
Township of O’Hara v. Condemnation of an Easement and Right of Way (2004)
Township of O’Hara v. Condemnation of an Easement and Right of Way
860 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)