Use of property for alcoholics anonymous meetings did not constitute office use under zoning ordinance, and Zoning Hearing Board’s exclusion of such use was not a violation of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Glenside Center, Inc. v. Abington Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 886 C.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 104 (Pa. Commw. March 17, 2009).
Waiver and laches do not serve as a defense to a citizen’s action challenging a zoning amendment to permit a communications tower on public property where the municipality failed to provide sufficient information to put citizens on notice of the project.
White v. Township of Upper St. Clair, Pa. Cmwlth., 799 A.2d 188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)
White v. Township of Upper St. Clair, No. 886 C.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 78 (Pa. Commw. March 3, 2009).
An ordinance restricting development in an R-1 District to one unit per two acres was not invalid or subject to curative amendment where the restriction was reasonably related to the Township’s interest in protecting the public health, safety and welfare and the Ordinance did not completely exclude a legitimate use.
Keinath v. Township of Edgmont, 964 A.2d 458 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
Evidence that the Township solicitor followed customary office procedures for mailing letters was sufficient evidence that the township complied with the requirements of the MPC for forwarding amendments to ordinances within 30 days of enactment even though there was no evidence of actual receipt by the planning department.
Appeal of: Rural Route Neighbors, 960 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
A zoning ordinance that limits the expansion of mining activities is not per se invalid for failing to provide for reasonable mineral development if the governing body completed the appropriate balancing analysis under Section 603 of the MPC.
Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania, Inc. v. College Township Council, 911 A.2d 592 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
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).
Lot size requirements may be used to regulate density of population and intensity of use but must be reasonable so as to keep the lot size economically feasible.
Fisher v. Viola, Jr.,et al. 789 A.2d 782, Commonwealth Court (November 30, 2001)
Larock v. Board of Supervisors of Sugarloaf Twp.,
866 A.2d 1208 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005)
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).
Parcel Size May Support Zoning Designation; Uses Prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance Prevail if in Conflict with Uses Recommended in a Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Hearing Board Determines Weight and Credibility of Witnesses.
In Re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 799 A.2d 938