This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania

Tag: Court of Common Pleas of Washington County

Court Rejects Special Exception Conditions Not Based in Zoning Ordinance/MPC or Supported By Record Evidence

 

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.

Continue reading

Burden of Accurately Identifying Ownership Interests of Property Being Condemned Falls on Condemnor

The misidentification of property being condemned by PennDOT for road construction meant that condemnees could challenge the adequacy of PennDOT’s Declaration of Taking after the expiration of the 30-day time limit for filing preliminary objections imposed by the Eminent Domain Code.  In concluding that PennDOT had not provided adequate notice to the property owners, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the burden of accurately identifying the property rested with the condemnor and not the condemnee.

Continue reading

Underlying Merits of Applications Irrelevant in Determining Deemed Approval

In this mandamus action out of Washington County, a billboard company (“All State”) sought to compel a Borough to issue billboard permits after Borough Council failed to act on the applications for nearly 6 months. The Court of Common Pleas of Washington County granted summary judgment, based in part on the fact that the proposed billboards would only have been permitted if the zoning ordinance were found to be exclusionary.  The Commonwealth Court reversed, stating the underlying merits of the applications was irrelevant where a deemed approval was asserted, and remanding the matter to determine whether the applications had been deemed approved.

Continue reading