In this recent Commonwealth Court case several landlords renting single-family properties to students challenged the constitutionality of the Philadelphia Zoning Ordinance’s definition of “family.” Specifically they sought to invalidate the exclusion of “more than three persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption” from the definition. In the court’s decision it affirmed the general principles that in Pennsylvania the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance is subject to rational basis review and that ordinances may exclude certain living arrangements from the definition of “family” based on biological and legal bonds.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Land Use and Zoning (Page 9 of 9)
The Commonwealth Court has determined that objectors to the issuance of a non-conforming use certificate cannot appeal such an action because a non-conforming use certificate does not constitute an “application for development” under the MPC.
In a concise opinion, Commonwealth Court recently reemphasized the importance of following the rules governing intervention in land use appeals in the case of Lescinsky v. Covington Zoning Hearing Board.
“How“
In June 2015, Commonwealth Court continued a recent line of preemption cases, in Gibraltar Rock Inc. v. New Hanover Township, 1907 C.D. 2014, 2015 WL 3533839 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 5, 2015). In Gibraltar Rock, Commonwealth Court considered whether New Hanover Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance was preempted by the Noncoal Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (“Noncoal Act”). Gibraltar sought to develop property for a quarry and associated facilities, and received a Noncoal Surface Mining Permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) authorizing it to operate the quarry. When Gibraltar sought to begin quarrying operations, New Hanover Township sought to enjoin Gibraltar from quarrying, asserting that Gibraltar did not have the requisite approvals from the township—specifically land development approval, including compliance with the township’s stormwater management ordinance.
The Commonwealth Court was tasked with considering whether Maxatawny Township’s Board of Supervisors (Board) erred by granting an applicant’s Final Land Development Plan with conditions that were identical to the conditions set forth in the approved Preliminary Plan, when those conditions were not satisfied after the preliminary approval.
On June 26, 2015, Commonwealth Court again considered what circumstances constitute an “unnecessary hardship” justifying a use variance.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has found a Middle Smithfield Township zoning officer, who was suspended and ultimately fired after denying a certificate of compliance to a local school district, was not entitled to whistleblower protection.
On May 29, 2015, Commonwealth Court considered whether a mature tree line could constitute a unique physical characteristic for purposes of a dimensional variance analysis.
Published By:
