If chickens are raised on the farm, is a plant for processing those chickens considered part of that agricultural use? That was the question presented to the Commonwealth Court in this case. After analyzing the specific language of the municipal zoning ordinance, the court concluded such a facility was part of an agricultural use and therefore was permitted in a district that only allowed agriculture uses.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Land Use and Zoning (Page 6 of 9)
In this follow up case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) in which the Court struck down several provisions of Act 13, the State’s oil and gas law, that provided uniform statewide regulation of land uses associated with oil and gas operations, the Court dealt another blow to Act 13 by finding additional provisions either unconstitutional or not severable. The Court struck down additional sections related to allowing gas companies to employ eminent domain, exempting private water sources from being notified following spills, preventing doctors from disclosing or using information about patients’ chemical exposures, and allowing requests for state review of local ordinances.
This case out of Erie County involved a substantive validity challenge of an ordinance down-zoning a property based on an allegation of illegal spot zoning. In affirming the dismissal of the challenge, the Commonwealth Court concluded that Objectors had failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that the parcel was characteristically similar to surrounding properties.
In this case the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether “short-term rentals” of residential dwelling units were encompassed within the definition of a “single-family dwelling,” or constituted a separate commercial use. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court concluded that such rentals must be permitted, unless expressly prohibited by, or encompassed within another defined use in, the applicable zoning ordinance.
In this case out of Adams County, the Commonwealth Court was presented with a question regarding whether a zoning hearing board (“ZHB”) can deny an application for zoning relief based on a provision that was not raised, or incorrectly cited, by the zoning officer in his initial denial. In finding that the ZHB could make such a finding, the court supported its determination by citing to the fact that the issue had been raised at the zoning hearing and the applicant had been given an opportunity to address the issue and supplement the record prior to its close.
This case deals with the question of whether the common law merger of lots doctrine is applicable when a local governing body has not adopted a merger of lots provision in its zoning ordinance. The Commonwealth Court found that this doctrine has no application absent a merger of lots provision in the local zoning ordinance because it is a creature of local ordinance, not common law.
On July 21, 2016, the Department of Justice has filed a complaint against Bensalem Township for allegedly giving a proposed mosque harsher zoning treatment than similar institutions. The claims arise under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc–2000cc-5. RLUIPA prohibits a government from imposing burdensome zoning restrictions on religious groups.
The Commonwealth Court was required to determine whether or not Sunoco had authority to condemn property in order to advance phase two of its Mariner East pipeline project. Several property owners challenged the condemnations, arguing that Sunoco was not regulated by the Pennsylvania Utility Commission (PUC) and, therefore, could not exercise the eminent domain powers of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Court agreed with Sunoco, holding that the company was regulated by PUC for purposes of those portions of the project occurring solely in Pennsylvania.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to examine a prior nonconforming use at a recreational park open to the community. Hunterstown Ruritan Club (the “Club”) sought to expand its go-carting operations to include racing on Sundays. While the Straban Township Zoning Hearing Board (the “Board”) prevented the Club from doing after deeming it impermissible because it was not a use reflected in the Club’s certificate of nonconformance, the Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, holding that the Club’s previous racing events on Sundays entitled it to protection.
The applicant owned property in the city of Bethlehem, which was zoned RT High Density Residential. The applicant operated a deli on the property, which was a nonconforming use. The deli had been in business since the board approved a change in the use of the property from insurance office to a deli in 1998. The deli began operating at a loss in 2010. The applicant sought to expand the deli to a restaurant, which the applicant argued was a reasonable use of the property, for the survival of the business.
Published By:
