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).
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).
Enactment of Zoning Ordinances and Amendments are Legislative Acts
Apgar v. ZHB of Manheim, 661 A2d 445
Non-agricultural conditional and accessory uses do not undercut the validity of a Zoning Ordinance enacted to preserve active and productive agricultural lands.
Ethan-Michael, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 918 A.2d 203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
Macioce v. ZHB of the Borough of Baldwin
850 A.2d 882, (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
Municipality has opportunity to adopt its own cure after court rules the ordinance is unconstitutional and does not necessarily have to agree to the challenger's cure or requested site-specific relief.
Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 612 Pa. 282 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Providence Twp.,
476 Pa. 182 (1978)
A municipality did not abuse its discretion by adopting a more restrictive ordinance with respect to flood plain boundaries than that required by FEMA.
In re: Schieber, 927 A.2d 737 (Pa. Commw. 2007).
McGonigle v. Lower Heidelberg Twp. ZHB
858 A.2d 663 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)
Zoning ordinance may not exclude bed and breakfast use from the entire municipality.
Thomason v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Radnor Twp., 26 A.3d 562 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).
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).