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).
Ordinances that have been adopted with procedural defects may survive procedural challenge where evidence indicates that the defects are harmless, the public has relied significantly upon the validity of the ordinances for several years and the public benefits from avoiding the chaos of finding the ordinances to be void ab initio.
Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 972 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
Rural Route Neighbors v. East Buffalo Tp. Zoning Hearing Board,
2004 WL 2412378 (Pa. Cmwlth.)
Inconsistency with a comprehensive plan alone cannot be the basis for granting a curative amendment.
Briar Meadows Dev., Inc. v. S. Ctr. Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2 A.3d 1303 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
A sign ordinance limiting signs to twenty five square feet does not unconstitutionally exclude “industry standard” sized billboards.
Exeter Twp. v. Exeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Board, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
In re Appeal of Realen Valley Forge Greens Associates, 838 A.2d 718, 2003 WL 22971249 (Pa. 2003):
Legislative intent irrelevant when determining whether amendment constitutes spot zoning.
Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 11 A.3d 587 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).