Broussard v. ZON. BD. OF ADJ. OF PITTSBURGH (2006)

Zoning Hearing Bd., 217 A.3d 238 , 245 (Pa. 2019) (quoting 1 Pa. C.S. § 1922(1)-(2)). “[C]ourts ordinarily grant deference to the zoning [hearing] board’s understanding of its own ordinance because, as a general matter, governmental agencies are entitled ‘great weight’ in their interpretation of legislation they are charged to enforce.” Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006); see also 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921(c)(8) (“When the words of the …

However, [w]here the plan, as submitted, addresses all of the ordinance’s prerequisites for the special exception sought, and reasonably shows that the property owner is able to fulfill them in accordance with the procedures set forth by the zoning code (as reasonably interpreted by the [zoning hearing] board), a reviewing court should not reverse the grant of such an exception on the sole basis that some of the items described in the plan [are promised to] be completed at a…

Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 499 (Pa. 2006) (footnote omitted).

Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 495 (Pa. 2006).

Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006); Aldridge v. Jackson Township, 983 A.2d 247, 254 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009).

Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71, 79 , 907 A.2d 494, 499 (2006); Baird v. New Britain Township, 537 A.2d 976 (1988) (conditions for special exception detailed in the ordinance must be found to exist).

Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71, 81 , 907 A.2d 494, 500 (2006) (citation omitted).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained: “[Z]oning ordinances should receive a reasonable and fair construction in light of the subject matter dealt with and the manifest intention of the local legislative body.” Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006) (citation omitted).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained: “[Z]oning ordinances should receive a reasonable and fair construction in light of the subject matter dealt with and the manifest intention of the local legislative body.” Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006) (citation omitted). “[M]oreover, courts ordinarily grant deference to the zoning board’s understanding of its own ordinance because, as a general matter, 5 Even if we were…

Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 499 (Pa. 2006) (Broussard II).

After the record is closed, the ZBA will issue a decision within 45 days.15 The ZBA Chairperson, in accordance with this procedure, stated at the close of the hearing: 11 Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006). 12 Relosky v. Sacco, 523 A.2d 1112, 1116 (Pa. 1987); accord 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b) (“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursu…

Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006) (requiring that “zoning ordinances should receive a reasonable and fair construction”).

In re Thompson, 896 A.2d at 669 (citations omitted); see also Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006) (“courts ordinarily grant deference to the zoning board’s understanding of its own ordinance because, as a general matter, governmental agencies are entitled great weight in their interpretation of legislation they are charged to enforce”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Id. § 402(1)(E) (further explaining that “adverse impacts may include, but are not limited to, groundwater and surface water contamination, groundwater supply diminution, noise, used for storage of animal manure or nutrients or practices otherwise regulated by the act or this subchapter if the municipal ordinance is in conflict with the act and this subchapter. (c) Nothing in the act or this subchapter prevents a political subdivision or home rule municipality from adopting …

The MPC also includes 3“[A] special exception … is a use which is expressly permitted in a given zone so long as certain conditions detailed in the ordinance are found to exist.” Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 499 (Pa. 2006). [J-89-2018] - 4 a provision addressing the effect of ordinance changes on an application for a special exception, when the subject matter of that application would ultimately constitute land development.

See Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh , 589 Pa. 71 , 907 A.2d 494 , 500 (2006) ("courts ordinarily grant deference to the zoning board's understanding of its own ordinance because, as a general matter, governmental agencies are entitled great weight in their interpretation of legislation they are charged to enforce") (internal quotation marks omitted).

ZONING ORDINANCE, §2.2; Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 907 A.2d 494, 500 (Pa. 2006); (“courts ordinarily grant deference to the zoning board’s understanding of its own ordinance”).

Moreover, our courts have made clear that a special exception request should not be granted 10 unless the applicant can demonstrate that his “[development] plan, as submitted, addresses all of the ordinance’s prerequisites for the special exception sought, and reasonably shows that [he] is able to fulfill them in accordance with the procedures set forth by the [relevant] zoning code[.]” Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 502 (Pa. 2006)…

Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 500, 502 (Pa. 2006).

Whether their secondary conclusion was supported and legally sound only becomes an issue if their primary finding was unsound, which is was not. “[A] special exception in a zoning ordinance is a use which is expressly permitted in a given zone so long as certain conditions detailed in the ordinance are found to exist.” Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71 , 907 A.2d 494, 499 (2006).

Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494, 502 (Pa. 2006).

Bd. of Adjust. of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71, 81 , 907 A.2d 494, 500 (2006); City of Hope v. Sadsbury Tp.

Grp., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Heidelberg Twp., 918 A.2d 181, 188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); see also Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 831 A.2d 764 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), aff’d, 907 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2006).

See Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71 , 907 A.2d 494 (2006) (grant of special exception with conditions where applicant demonstrated willingness and ability to satisfy conditions and where it was reasonable that approval precede formal execution of binding contract for off-site parking).

See Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71, 84 , 907 A.2d 494, 502 (2006) (“[W]e conclude that, where the plan, as submitted, addresses all of the ordinance’s prerequisites for the special exception sought, and reasonably shows that the property owner is able to fulfill them in accordance with the procedures set forth by the zoning code (as reasonably interpreted by the board), a reviewing court should not reverse the grant of such an excep…

See, e.g., Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71 , 907 A.2d 494 (2006) (grant of special exception with conditions where applicant demonstrated willingness and ability to satisfy conditions and where it was reasonable that approval precede formal execution of binding contract for off-site parking); Kohr v. L.

See Broussard v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 589 Pa. 71, 81 , 907 A.2d 494, 500 (2006).