This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine if a municipality had a right to appeal the granting of a special exception by its zoning hearing board. The court held that it did not because the municipality failed to make the appropriate objection in front of the zoning hearing board, and thus, the issue was waived.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Land Use and Zoning (Page 3 of 9)
In this case, the Commonwealth Court had to decide whether a board of supervisors was wrong to consider and approve a land development plan prior to the developer obtaining zoning relief. Because the municipality’s subdivision and land development ordinance (“SALDO”) did not require that a land development applicant obtain zoning relief first, the board of supervisors did not err by considering and approving the land development plans.
This appeal required the Commonwealth Court to determine if a Philadelphia City Council member had standing to challenge the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (the Board) grant of a variance to create a private driveway. More specifically, the court had to decide whether or not the First Class City Home Rule Act (the HRA), the Philadelphia Zoning Code (the Code), or the challenger’s status as a council member granted him standing. The court held that the plain language of the HRA and the Code grants standing to the city council only as a single government body, and it further held that there was no “legislative standing” because the city council’s authority to regulate public streets was not impaired by the granting of this particular variance.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether the Charlestown Township Board of Supervisors (the Board) had standing to appeal a trial court’s order that reversed the Board’s decision to deny a conditional use application. In holding that the Board did have standing to appeal, the court relied on important differences between boards of supervisors and zoning hearing boards.
The Pennsylvania Law Weekly, August 22, 2017
Land use cases do not often wind their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. When they do, the decision is bound to have a ripple effect throughout the land.
The DiMattias were issued a zoning violation notice for using a garage and driveway on a residential property they owned in the Township’s R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning District to prepare, repair, and transport race cars. When Landowners purchased the Property in 2009, it contained a single-family detached residence and two garages. Landowners erected a large pole barn in 2010, and rented out the residence. In November 2014 the Township issued a notice of violation alleging Landowners were servicing vehicles on the Property from an automobile repair business they owned, and were working on race cars on the Property. The notice directed Landowners to cease and desist their use of the garages and driveway for “servicing vehicles, working on race cars and trailer storage.” Landowners appealed the violation notice to the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”). The ZHB sustained Landowners’ appeal related to servicing vehicles from their business, but denied it as to their race car activities. The ZHB concluded that their race car activities did not qualify as an accessory use in the R-1 district. Landowners appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, which affirmed the ZHB decision, and Landowners appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Zoning Appeal to Federal Court Could not be Transferred to State Court After Dismissal on the Merits
In this complaint, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a request to transfer a previously dismissed zoning appeal from federal court back to state court. In finding that transfer was not permitted, the Court ruled that transfer was only permitted when matters were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and both federal courts had dismissed based on the merits.
In this appeal from the denial of a mandatory sketch plan, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether § 917 of the Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) imposes an absolute 6-month deadline for acting upon a special exception approval to prevent subsequently adopted ordinance amendments from becoming applicable to the underlying project. In reversing the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court found that the 6-month deadline was not absolute and could be extended by a municipality in its zoning ordinance.
In this case out of Chester County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a request for site specific relief following a successful validity challenge of the East Pike Township Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”). In concluding that the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County had erred by denying site-specific relief, the Court found the 1 year limitation in § 916.1(g) was inapplicable, it was improper for the trial court to merely rely upon the conclusions of the East Pike Township Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”), and the burden of proving compliance with the Ordinance’s unchallenged, pre-existing, and generally applicable provisions rested upon the Township rather than the successful challenger.
MetroDev V, LP (“Landowner”) owns property (the “Property”) in an area where the boundary lines of the Township of Exeter (the “Township”), and two surrounding municipalities meet. Prior to July 25, 2005, the Property was zoned low density residential; however, on July 25, 2005 the Township rezoned the Property to suburban residential. The changed classification reduced the number of permitted residential lots from 30 to 7. In August 2005, Landowner filed a validity challenge of the new ordinance with the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) alleging procedural irregularities in its adoption. In September 2005, Landowners filed a preliminary subdivision plan for a residential development comprising 34 residential lots, 26 of which were located in the Township. The plan was based on a sketch plan that had previously been submitted under the old ordinance. Certain waivers were sought from the Township’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (“SALDO”). On September 26, 2005, the Township and Landowner entered into a settlement agreement whereby Landowner withdrew its procedural validity challenge in exchange for the Township agreeing to review and potentially approve the land development plan under the terms of the old zoning ordinance. In July 2008, the Township approved Landowner’s plan, subject to certain conditions. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Township had reviewed the plan under the old ordinance. Adjacent property owners (“Objectors”) filed a land use appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, which was dismissed for lack of standing because Objectors had not appeared in the earlier proceedings.
Published By:
