substantive validity challenge in Pennsylvania

2023William Penn, 346 A.2d at 282 ; see also Worthington [v. Mount Pleasant Twp.], 212 A.3d 582, 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019)] (“theoretical concerns do not satisfy the legal requirement that [the objector] have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest to have standing”); Laughman [v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Newberry Twp., 964 A.2d 19, 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009)] (a mere concern of remote consequences is not direct because all citizens share concerns regarding traffic and safety).

2022William Penn, 346 A.2d at 282 ; see also Worthington, 212 A.3d at 593 (“theoretical concerns do not satisfy the legal requirement that [the objector] have a substantial, direct, and immediate interest to have standing”); Laughman, 964 A.2d at 23 (a mere concern of remote consequences is not direct because all citizens share concerns regarding traffic and safety).

2014Specifically, this Court explained: In CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 707 , 860 A.2d 491 (2004), this court addressed the status of a comprehensive plan in reviewing a lower court’s disapproval of a preliminary land development plan.

2011Specifically, this Court explained: In CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 707 , 860 A.2d 491 (2004), this court addressed the status of a comprehensive plan in reviewing a lower court’s disapproval of a preliminary land development plan.

2014Specifically, this Court explained: In CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 707 , 860 A.2d 491 (2004), this court addressed the status of a comprehensive plan in reviewing a lower court’s disapproval of a preliminary land development plan.

2011Specifically, this Court explained: In CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 580 Pa. 707 , 860 A.2d 491 (2004), this court addressed the status of a comprehensive plan in reviewing a lower court’s disapproval of a preliminary land development plan.

2025Section 916.1(c)(3)-(4) of the MPC, 53 P.S. § 10916.1(c)(3)-(4); Borough of West Mifflin, 452 A.2d at 100 .

2024A substantive validity challenge, generally, attacks a zoning ordinance on substantive due process grounds, “i.e. whether an ordinance is substantially related to a legitimate interest.” See id.

2024The party challenging the zoning ordinance “must establish that [it is] arbitrary and unreasonable and [has] no substantial relationship to promoting the public health, safety and welfare.” See id. 12 Except those brought before the governing body pursuant to Sections 609.1 and 916.1(a)(2), added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329.

2024Penneco, 205 A.3d at 410 .1 1 Penneco involved a substantive validity challenge to the Ordinance, which Penneco alleged at the time excluded injection wells and was preempted by state and federal law.

2024Penneco, 205 A.3d at 402-03 .

2022In so doing, the trial court concluded that this Court’s decisions in Frederick v. Allegheny Township Zoning Hearing Board, 196 A.3d 677 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (en banc), Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Middlesex Township Zoning Hearing Board (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2609 C.D. 2015, filed June 16, 2019) (unreported), and Protect PT v. Penn Township Zoning Hearing Board, 220 A.3d 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019), effectively foreclosed the MWC’s constitutional and statutory challenges.

2021Common knowledge indicates that certain types of business activities, by reason of the particularly objectionable quality of those activities, are undesirable land uses and total prohibition would appear prima facie to be designed to protect those public interests which zoning statutes permit municipalities to protect. . . . [These include] activit[ies] generally known to give off noxious odors, disturb the tranquility of a large area by making loud noises, have the obvious potential of poisoning the air or the water of the area, or similarly have clearly deleterious effects upon the general p

2021Dist. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Wyomissing Borough, 128 A.3d 851 , 855 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), appeal denied, 141 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2016). 14 The Borough and Provco counter that Neighbors’ “displeasure with [Common Pleas’] holding does not legitimize their claim that [Common Pleas] applied a de novo standard of review.” (Borough’s and Provco’s Brief at 8.) The Borough and Provco submit that Common Pleas, based on the record, “determined that the ZHB ignored Pennsylvania law and reached a decision that was not supported by substantial evidence . . . [and that Common Pleas] applied the correct standa

2021Smithfield Twp., 909 A.2d at 478 .

2021Dist. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Wyomissing Borough, 128 A.3d 851 , 855 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), appeal denied, 141 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2016). 14 The Borough and Provco counter that Neighbors’ “displeasure with [Common Pleas’] holding does not legitimize their claim that [Common Pleas] applied a de novo standard of review.” (Borough’s and Provco’s Brief at 8.) The Borough and Provco submit that Common Pleas, based on the record, “determined that the ZHB ignored Pennsylvania law and reached a decision that was not supported by substantial evidence . . . [and that Common Pleas] applied the correct standa

2021Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board, 873 A.2d 807 , 811 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 8 In fact, the Township acknowledges that the ZHB has jurisdiction to hear a substantive validity challenge, but the Township contends that the application submitted to the ZHB was incorrectly labeled as such.

2019Hamilton Hills Group, LLC v. Hamilton Township Zoning Hearing Board, 4 A.3d 788 , 792 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 8 issue.3 The Board makes similar arguments in support of the Borough’s appeal, arguing that (1) the trial court erred when it held that the Board’s decision ignored the law of nonconforming uses and the vested property rights of Landowner; and (2) the trial court erred in relying on Miller.

2017If the governing body determines that the substantive validity challenge has merit, the governing body shall then consider the site-specific plans submitted by the landowner and shall also consider the impact of the proposed amendment on the natural resources and natural features of the municipality, other land uses within the municipality and the public resources of the municipality, including roads and sewer facilities. 53 P.S. §§ 10609.1(c), 10916.1(c)(5); Piper Group, 30 A.3d at 1097 .

2014In Appeal of Miller and Son Paving, Inc., 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 138 , 636 A.2d 274 (1993) (en banc), the challenger appealed the trial court’s decision, which affirmed a decision by the local board of supervisors rejecting the challenger’s substantive validity challenge to the township’s zoning ordinance.

2014In Appeal of Miller and Son Paving, Inc., 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 138 , 636 A.2d 274 (1993) (en banc), the challenger appealed the trial court’s decision, which affirmed a decision by the local board of supervisors rejecting the challenger’s substantive validity challenge to the township’s zoning ordinance.

2013Further, the purpose of mandatory time limits is to “protect an applicant from dilatory conduct by the municipality.” Nextel Partners, 958 A.2d at 593 .

2004Citing Unger v. Township of Hampton, 437 Pa. 399 , 263 A.2d 385 (1970), the Township points out that a substantive validity challenge is ripe for judicial review only after a hearing before the zoning hearing board because the case may present issues of fact and interpretation within the special expertise of the board.

2004Citing Unger v. Township of Hampton, 437 Pa. 399 , 263 A.2d 385 (1970), the Township points out that a substantive validity challenge is ripe for judicial review only after a hearing before the zoning hearing board because the case may present issues of fact and interpretation within the special expertise of the board.

1983Cf. Greene Township v. Kuhl, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 592 , 379 A.2d 1383 (1977) (A substantive validity challenge to a zoning ordinance first must be' submitted under the provisions of Section 1004(1) of the MPC, 53 P.S. §11004(1)).

1983Cf. Greene Township v. Kuhl, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 592 , 379 A.2d 1383 (1977) (A substantive validity challenge to a zoning ordinance first must be' submitted under the provisions of Section 1004(1) of the MPC, 53 P.S. §11004(1)).