The complete prohibition of off-site billboard advertising is unconstitutional. A successful constitutional challenge does not automatically entitle the challenger to a variance.
Lamar Advertising v. Borough of Deer Lake Zoning Hearing Board, 915 A.2d 705 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
View Case Details »
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).
View Case Details »
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).
View Case Details »
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).
View Case Details »
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).
View Case Details »
A challenge alleging procedural defects in the enactment of an ordinance may be brought more than thirty days after the ordinance’s intended effective date.
Glen-Gery Corp. v. ZHB of Dover Twp., 856 A.2d 884 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
Glen-Gery Corp. v. Dover Twp. Zoning Hearing Board, 907 A.2d 1033 (Pa. 2006).
View Case Details »
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).
View Case Details »