In this land use appeal from Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court re-affirmed the requirement that an applicant seeking a dimensional variance from a provision of a local zoning ordinance prove that the subject property is burdened by an unnecessary hardship to justify the requested relief.
Continue readingThis blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Land Use and Zoning (Page 2 of 9)
In this land use appeal from Cumberland County, the Commonwealth Court refused to strike down a Township’s adoption of two zoning ordinances, which rezoned a property from residential to industrial, on procedural grounds relating to notice and public comment.
Continue readingThe owner of an existing 18-hole golf course appealed the denial by the zoning officer of his request to add a bowling alley to the property as an accessory use, or alternatively requested a variance.
Continue readingIn this case a property owner sought a variance to allow more retail space on the ground floor of his building than 1,500 square feet permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Continue readingIn this variance case out of Philadelphia, an objecting neighbor appealed the grant of a use variance by the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) to redevelop a partially vacant and underutilized former industrial building into a mixed use multi-family residential building. Following an affirmance by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Objector appealed to Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court condensed the issues raised on appeal down to whether the applicant, Hightop Brown, LLC, had standing, and whether there was sufficient evidence to grant the requested variance. The Commonwealth Court affirmed ZBA’s decision.
In this case out of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the reversal of a Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) decision to deny special exception approval to a developer to construct a Dunkin Donuts near the intersection of Broad Street and Oregon Avenue in South Philadelphia. Monroe Land Investments (“Monroe”) filed a special exception application to redevelop a former 7-11 and Napa auto parts store into a Dunkin Donuts coffee shop.
In this case out of Washington County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on what conditions a zoning hearing board may reasonably impose upon a special exception approval. In ruling that most of the conditions imposed by the Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) were unreasonable, and thus an abuse of discretion, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that conditions placed on a special exception approval must be based upon either the zoning ordinance or the Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”), and must be supported by evidence in the record.
The Commonwealth Court was asked to assess the constitutionality of a provision of the Philadelphia city code regulating “adult cabaret.” The court found that the language of the ordinance was neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not a zoning hearing board had the authority to place conditions on the grant of a special exception. In holding that it did, the court relied on the language of the Philadelphia city code, which it determined provided the board with adequate discretion to impose the conditions.
This case involved an appeal from a 2015 land use settlement entered into between Lower Mount Bethel Township (the “Township”) and Gravel Hill Enterprises, Inc. (“Gravel Hill”). The settlement revolved around the use of Gravel Hill’s property as a location for stump grinding to create mulch and top soil. There were concerns regarding truck traffic, increased noise, declining property values, and other issues on the part of the Township and many of its residents.
Published By:
