Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
274 results for '* topic:"Land Use and Planning"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-01-30
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Linhardt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: CV-22-00342
The Zoning Hearing Board of Nippenose Township erred in finding that appellant's home addition constituted "new construction" under the township's floodplain ordinance where the subject language was ambiguous and did not clearly to refer to projects that merely expand existing structures or buildings. The court issued an order granting appellant's land use appeal.
Publication Date: 2023-01-09
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Cannon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 908 C.D. 2021
The trial court erred in granting applicant a use variance based on its finding that the property was subject to a unique hardship as the record supported the conclusion that the asserted hardship was common to a large portion of the properties in the town's commercial district. The commonwealth court reversed.
Publication Date: 2023-01-09
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Coyle
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 02077
The City of Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment erred in affirming the grant of a "by right" zoning permit for the proposed construction of a 45-foot building with an unspecified ground floor commercial use and upper floor apartments as the permit disregarded all set-back requirements and was not otherwise supported by substantial evidence. The court recommended affirmance.
Publication Date: 2023-01-09
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Wojcik
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 551 C.D. 2021
Although trial court could remand for consideration of amended variance application selecting new construction site, local zoning board erred in approving the amended application without considering any evidence to support any mandatory requirement for grant of a variance. Order of the trial court vacated, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2023-01-02
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Construction | Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Roberts
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 01844
The court denied appellants' appeal of a zoning board's decision to approve the development of a mixed-use structure with a fresh food market on the ground floor and residential housing on the upper five floors. The court noted that the ample evidence in the record demonstrated that title to the property was clear, the property had been specifically zoned for commercial parking, and the developer had intended that a fresh-food market eventually be constructed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Ron M. Campbell
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-12-19
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Covey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 920 C.D. 2021
Trial court erred in sua sponte raising the issue of the definition of "building" in township's unified development ordinance and reversing zoning board's denial of applicant's request for approval for continuance of a nonconforming usage and court found the adoption of the UDO did not render the existing mobile home use or the residence nonconforming. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Energy | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge McCullough
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 822 C.D. 2021
No procedural error by county board where a quorum was unnecessary for the board to conduct a public hearing on a proposed ordinance amendment, and quorum was achieved when the board took official action on the amendment. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Non-Profit | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Cannon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1129 C.D. 2021
Trial court erred in affirming zoning board's grant of dimensional variances to create nonconforming lots and the special exception to construct single-family residences because board failed to address each requirement of the zoning ordinance, §922.09E, failed to determine if any of the proposed nonconforming lots were located within the preexisting nonconforming lots or were in common ownership or met the definitions in the code and failed to adequately address the requested special exception. Vacated and remanded.
Publication Date: 2022-11-14
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Mccullough
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 776 C.D. 2021
Trial court erred in applying the pending ordinance doctrine to appellants' preliminary land development application for a use permitted by right under the ordinance in effect on the date appellants filed their application because §508(4)(i) of the Municipalities Planning Code applied to the application. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2022-11-14
Practice Area: Land Use and Planning
Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 51 C.D. 2021
Trial court did not err in finding that conveyance of a strip of adjacent property to developer for developer to convey it and a strip of developer's land to PennDOT for widening of a highway right-of-way was for a public purpose and did not require subdivision approval from township and trial court did not err in finding bad faith on the part of township. Affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read