Overlay districts can be used to preserve agriculture but cannot be used to prohibit reasonable development altogether.
Main St. Dev. Group, Inc. v. Tinicum Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 19 A.3d 21 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
Zoning Validity Challenges
Atherton Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Ferguson (2011)
Peninsula of land zoned residential surrounded on one side by commercial and residential zoning, on a second side by commercial zoning and a third side by residential zoning was not subject of reverse spot zoning.
Atherton Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Ferguson, 29 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011)
Messina v. East Penn Twp. (2012)
Discussion of burden of proof for procedural validity challenge filed more than thirty days after ordinance is adopted.
Messina v. East Penn Twp., 619 Pa. 326 (Pa. 2012).
Atiyeh v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Bethlehem Twp. (2012)
Township's ordinance was de jure exclusionary where definition of treatment center did not include prisons and prisons were not permitted anywhere in the Township.
Atiyeh v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Bethlehem Twp., 41 A.3d 232 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
Penn St., L.P. v. East Lampeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2014)
Ordinance limitation on number of lots that can be subdivided from property was not unconstitutional.
Penn St., L.P. v. East Lampeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 84 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
Newtown Square E. L.P. v. Twp. of Newtown (2014)
Applicant for preliminary plan under PRD provisions was not required to identify specific uses within commercial buildings depicted on the plan.
Newtown Square E. L.P. v. Twp. of Newtown, 101 A.3d 37 (Pa. 2014).
Appeal of Bartkowski Inv. Group, Inc. (2014)
Discussion of the process for evaluating site-specific relief after a successful validity challenge.
Appeal of Bartkowski Inv. Group, Inc., 106 A.3d 230 (Pa. Commw Ct. 2014).
TWL Realty, LLC v. W. Hanover Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd. (2016)
Municipality is not permitted through its zoning ordinance to regulate matters of parole and probation. The Commonwealth, alone, determines whether a Department of Corrections resident is a potential menace to public safety, and if the resident is permitted to enter a "work-release facility."
TWL Realty, LLC v. W. Hanover Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 8 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
Date of Decision: 1/5/16
Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board (2009)
Challenges to the validity of zoning ordinances based on the void ab initio doctrine were rejected based on the period of time of acquiescence – the period the ordinances survived without challenge, the reasonable reliance on the provisions of the ordinances by Township residents and the potential turmoil that would result upon declaring the ordinances void based on procedural defects in enactment.
Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board, 972 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
Date of Decision: 5/13/09
Arbor Resources Limited Liability Co. v. Nockamixon Township (2009)
Zoning ordinances regulating oil and gas operations, including restrictions on lot size, setback requirements and environmental protections, constitute traditional zoning which may be challenged only through the statutory zoning appeal procedure in the MPC. The Common Pleas Court could not exercise equitable jurisdiction to review the same unless the challenger first exhausted the appeal procedure in the MPC.
Arbor Resources Limited Liability Co. v. Nockamixon Township, 973 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
Date of Decision: 5/11/09