In this zoning appeal out of Montgomery County, the Commonwealth Court addressed whether, under the Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) the filing of a mandatory sketch plan created a vested right such that any future zoning applications had to be reviewed under the zoning ordinance in effect when the sketch plan was filed. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court concluded the MPC created a vested right which applied to both the then existing subdivision and land development ordinance (“SALDO”) and zoning ordinance.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Land Use and Zoning (Page 4 of 9)
This appeal out of Columbia County dealt with the denial of a special exception application to permit the development of single family attached dwellings in an area where only single family detached dwellings currently existed. In reversing, the Commonwealth Court held that objecting neighbors failed to present competent, objective evidence to overcome the presumption that the use was compatible, and that the proposed use would generate adverse effects greater than normal from this type of use.
In this appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether § 617 of the Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”) permits a private cause of action to enforce a SALDO violation. In reversing the trial court’s determination, the Court held that MPC § 617 permits private enforcement actions for violations of any ordinance established pursuant to the MPC.
In this zoning appeal originating before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine the applicability of the pending ordinance doctrine when post submission revisions have been made to plans after the proposed zoning amendment is deemed pending by the Zoning Ordinance. In finding that the doctrine did not apply, the court concluded that the determination of the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections (“L&I”) that the application was complete when filed, overcame objecting neighbors’ arguments that the revisions made the doctrine applicable.
In this appeal out of Monroe County, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether the ZHB and Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County properly interpreted the Township’s Zoning Ordinance as excluding transient lodging enterprises in districts where only a single-family dwelling use was permitted. In reversing the trial court’s affirmation of the ZHB’s decision, the Court found that such a use, pursuant to the definitions in the Ordinance, was permitted.
In this appeal out of Allegheny County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with an appeal from the reversal of a Borough Council’s denial of a conditional use application. In affirming the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County’s reversal, the Commonwealth Court found that Borough Council had not properly shifted the burden of proof to objectors once the applicant had satisfied all objective conditional use requirements in the zoning ordinance.
In the first of two cases relating to the subject property, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County affirming the London Grove Township Zoning Hearing Board’s (“ZHB”) denial of a variance to Delchester Developers (“Delchester”) to develop two adjoining properties. The Court concluded that the ZHB had properly interpreted its zoning ordinance, that Delchester’s validity challenge of the Borough’s stormwater ordinance was not within the ZHB’s jurisdiction, and the Township’s “net out” provision was neither a violation of due process nor an illegal taking.
In this zoning appeal out of Alleghany County, the Commonwealth Court was asked whether preservation requirements imposed by a government agency on property that it owned, may constitute an unnecessary hardship to justify a variance. In concluding such a hardship is self-imposed and does not warrant a variance, the court focused on the fact that no legal authority required preservation, and that the more appropriate solution was for the City to rezone the site rather than have the applicant seek a variance.
In this appeal from a preliminary opinion of Lower Merion Township, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine what constituted a “street” when a zoning ordinance requires a specific “lot width at street line.” In finding that a right-of-way allowing access to a land-locked property constituted a “street” for purposes of determining lot width at street line, the court held that the two requirements for a “street” were that the right-of-way provide: (1) a means for vehicular travel, and (2) space for sewers and public utilities.
In this challenge of the grant of a variance by the City of Philadelphia’s Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”), the Commonwealth Court ruled that a narrow side-yard and district-wide parking restrictions did not amount to an unnecessary hardship that would warrant a variance to locate a parking space within the front-yard setback.
Published By:
