Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2024The Township argues: (1) there is no general right to a de minimis variance in Pennsylvania land use law; (2) the decision to grant or deny a requested de minimis variance is within the sound discretion of a local zoning hearing board; (3) a de minimis variance is not available to deviate from steep slope zoning regulations in the absence of all the traditional variance standards set forth in Hertzberg v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 721 A.2d 43 (Pa. 1998); and (4) if a de minimis variance was available, the Board properly exercised its discretion to deny a de minimis vari 2024See id. | 2 | 2 |
Becker v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Sewickleygreen2 sentences2021As such, “a local zoning hearing board cannot appeal a reversal of its decisions on the merits by the courts of common pleas.” Becker v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Sewickley, 874 A.2d 1270, 1274 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). 2011See Becker v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of Sewickley, 874 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (“although a municipality has the ability to settle zoning disputes that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipality ..., [it] cannot settle disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the local zoning hearing board”); 53 P.S. § 10909.1(b)(3). | 2 | 2 |
Hazleton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2014Likewise, in Hazleton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Board, 566 Pa. 180 , 778 A.2d 1205 (2001), the third case upon which the Majority relies, this Court was called upon to determine “whether the authority granted to a school district under the Public School Code ... preempted] the powers ... granted to a local zoning hearing board under the Municipalities Planning Code.... ” Id. at 1207. 2014Likewise, in Hazleton Area School District v. Zoning Hearing Board, 566 Pa. 180 , 778 A.2d 1205 (2001), the third case upon which the Majority relies, this Court was called upon to determine “whether the authority granted to a school district under the Public School Code ... preempted] the powers ... granted to a local zoning hearing board under the Municipalities Planning Code.... ” Id. at 1207. | 1 | 2 |
Merlin v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2007The Township relies on Merlin v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 45 , 455 A.2d 789 (1983), for the proposition that section 909.1(a)(1) of the MPC vests exclusive jurisdiction in the local zoning hearing boards (ZHB) to hear and render final adjudications regarding substantive challenges to the validity of any land use ordinance. 53 P.S. § 10909.1(a)(1). *741 The Township also contends that if ACRE does vest this court with nonexclusive jurisdiction to review land use ordinances, 6 the rules of statutory construction require that this court decline to accept jurisdiction here. 2007The Township relies on Merlin v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa.Cmwlth. 45 , 455 A.2d 789 (1983), for the proposition that section 909.1(a)(1) of the MPC vests exclusive jurisdiction in the local zoning hearing boards (ZHB) to hear and render final adjudications regarding substantive challenges to the validity of any land use ordinance. 53 P.S. § 10909.1(a)(1). *741 The Township also contends that if ACRE does vest this court with nonexclusive jurisdiction to review land use ordinances, 6 the rules of statutory construction require that this court decline to accept jurisdiction here. | 1 | 2 |
Summit Township Taxpayers Ass'n v. Summit Township Board of Supervisorsgreen2 sentences2005Second, although a municipality has the ability to settle zoning disputes that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipality, see 53 P.S. § 10901.1(b) (jurisdiction of governing bodies); see also Summit Township Taxpayers Association v. Summit Township Board of Supervisors, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 459 , 411 A.2d 1263 (1980); Al Monzo Construction Company v. Monroeville Borough, 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 97 , 289 A.2d 496 (1972), a municipality cannot settle disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the local zoning hearing board. 2005Second, although a municipality has the ability to settle zoning disputes that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipality, see 53 P.S. § 10901.1(b) (jurisdiction of governing bodies); see also Summit Township Taxpayers Association v. Summit Township Board of Supervisors, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 459 , 411 A.2d 1263 (1980); Al Monzo Construction Company v. Monroeville Borough, 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 97 , 289 A.2d 496 (1972), a municipality cannot settle disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the local zoning hearing board. | 1 | 1 |
Longo Liquor License Casegreen1 sentence1994See Willits Woods Assoc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 138 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 62, 67, 587 A.2d 827, 829 (1990), where this court, relying upon Longo Liquor License Case, 183 Pa.Superior Ct. 504, 508, 132 A.2d 899, 901 (1957), deferred to the zoning hearing board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance in question in that case, noting the principle, now codified as to statutory interpretation under section 1921(c)(8) of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)(8), that courts should give great weight and deference to the interpretation of a statutory or | 1 | 1 |
Willits Woods Associates v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence1994See Willits Woods Assoc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, 138 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 62, 67, 587 A.2d 827, 829 (1990), where this court, relying upon Longo Liquor License Case, 183 Pa.Superior Ct. 504, 508, 132 A.2d 899, 901 (1957), deferred to the zoning hearing board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance in question in that case, noting the principle, now codified as to statutory interpretation under section 1921(c)(8) of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c)(8), that courts should give great weight and deference to the interpretation of a statutory or | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnston v. Upper MacUngie Township
green
1 sentence2021Johnston, 638 A.2d at 412 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Allegheny Tower Associates, LLC v. City of Scranton Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2020The local zoning hearing board denied the application, finding it did not meet the requirement in the ordinance that the proposed use “will not significantly affect the desirable character of an existing residential neighborhood.” Id. at 1120 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Williams Holding Group, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of West Hanover Township
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jojo Oil Co. v. Dingman Township Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 685 . 2016The oil company appealed that decision to the trial court, which reversed the local zoning hearing board. “[T]he trial court found that there was a lack of testimony as to the level of risk of an explosion,” and reasoned that the objecting neighbors “merely speculated as to the risk of explosion.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Matter of Larsen
green
2 sentences2015Section 908(3) of the MPC provides that the parties to a hearing before the local zoning hearing board include any individuals or entities who are “permitted to appear by the board.” 53 P.S. § 10908(3). 6 Specifically, Objector relied on two cases: In re Larsen, 532 Pa. 326 , 616 A.2d 529 (1992) and Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Horsham Twp., 963 A.2d 622 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009). 2015Section 908(3) of the MPC provides that the parties to a hearing before the local zoning hearing board include any individuals or entities who are “permitted to appear by the board.” 53 P.S. § 10908(3). 6 Specifically, Objector relied on two cases: In re Larsen, 532 Pa. 326 , 616 A.2d 529 (1992) and Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Horsham Twp., 963 A.2d 622 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Thompson v. ZON. HEAR. BD. OF HORSHAM TP.
green
1 sentence2015Section 908(3) of the MPC provides that the parties to a hearing before the local zoning hearing board include any individuals or entities who are “permitted to appear by the board.” 53 P.S. § 10908(3). 6 Specifically, Objector relied on two cases: In re Larsen, 532 Pa. 326 , 616 A.2d 529 (1992) and Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Horsham Twp., 963 A.2d 622 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Al Monzo Construction Co. v. Monroeville Borough
green
2 sentences2005Second, although a municipality has the ability to settle zoning disputes that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipality, see 53 P.S. § 10901.1(b) (jurisdiction of governing bodies); see also Summit Township Taxpayers Association v. Summit Township Board of Supervisors, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 459 , 411 A.2d 1263 (1980); Al Monzo Construction Company v. Monroeville Borough, 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 97 , 289 A.2d 496 (1972), a municipality cannot settle disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the local zoning hearing board. 2005Second, although a municipality has the ability to settle zoning disputes that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipality, see 53 P.S. § 10901.1(b) (jurisdiction of governing bodies); see also Summit Township Taxpayers Association v. Summit Township Board of Supervisors, 49 Pa.Cmwlth. 459 , 411 A.2d 1263 (1980); Al Monzo Construction Company v. Monroeville Borough, 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 97 , 289 A.2d 496 (1972), a municipality cannot settle disputes that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the local zoning hearing board. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lang v. Township of North Fayette
neutral
2 sentences2005Lang v. Township of North Fayette, 63 Pa.Cmwlth. 268 , 437 A.2d 1282 (1981). 2005Lang v. Township of North Fayette, 63 Pa.Cmwlth. 268 , 437 A.2d 1282 (1981). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lansdowne Borough Board of Adjustment's Appeal
green
2 sentences2005Lansdowne Borough Board of Adjustment Appeal, 313 Pa. 523 , 170 A. 867 (1934). 2005Lansdowne Borough Board of Adjustment Appeal, 313 Pa. 523 , 170 A. 867 (1934). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hawk v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence1994The *618 power to grant a special exception is vested in the local zoning hearing board, Hawk v. Zoning Hearing Board of Butler Township, 152 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 48, 618 A.2d 1087 (1992), appeal denied, 535 Pa. 625 , 629 A.2d 1385 (1993); and the grant of a special exception is not an exception to a zoning ordinance but is a use permitted conditionally, one which is stated in the zoning ordinance to be granted or denied by the Board pursuant to express standards and criteria. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Heck v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence1992Heck v. Zoning Hearing Board of Harvey’s Lake Borough, 39 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 570, 397 A.2d 15 (1979). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Greene Township v. KUHL
green
1 sentence1991Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Marinari v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences1988Marinari v. Zoning Hearing Board of New Hanover Township, 90 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 601 , 496 A.2d 121 (1985). 2 Since we may look to the use of a property to determine whether it is in single and separate ownership, it also follows that the feet that lots are shown separately on plans or are described separately in deeds is not per se, determinative of the issue. 1988Marinari v. Zoning Hearing Board of New Hanover Township, 90 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 601 , 496 A.2d 121 (1985). 2 Since we may look to the use of a property to determine whether it is in single and separate ownership, it also follows that the feet that lots are shown separately on plans or are described separately in deeds is not per se, determinative of the issue. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Dunlap v. Larkin
green
2 sentences1986In Dunlap v. Larkin, 342 Pa. Super. 594 , 493 A.2d 750 (1985), the Pennsylvania Superior Court was dealing with the issue of the transfer of an appeal erroneously filed from common pleas court to the local zoning hearing board. 1986In Dunlap v. Larkin, 342 Pa. Super. 594 , 493 A.2d 750 (1985), the Pennsylvania Superior Court was dealing with the issue of the transfer of an appeal erroneously filed from common pleas court to the local zoning hearing board. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.