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.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1952–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2019To warrant the denial of a special exception, objectors must show a high degree of probability that the anticipated traffic increase would pose a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community. 410 A.2d at 914 . 1987Opinion by Judge Craig, In this zoning case involving the denial of a special exception for off-street parking space on premises different from those where the use is located, the sole issue is whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the zoning hearing board findings which undergird that boards conclusion that the applicant did not sustain his burden of showing compliance with specific requirements, as required by Bray v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 523 , 410 A.2d 909 (1980). | 1 | 3 |
Marr Development Mifflinville, LLC v. Mifflin Township Zoning Hearing Boardgreen1 sentence2019"Further, mere lay testimony of concerns regarding increased traffic ... is insufficient to support the denial of a special exception." Dunbar , 144 A.3d at 226 ; see Marr Development , 166 A.3d at 484 (finding objectors' evidence insufficient to establish that proposed use would generate traffic not normally generated by that type of use where no traffic study was presented and objectors simply testified as to their opinion that traffic would increase). | 1 | 1 |
In re Appeal of Bairdgreen1 sentence1991In Appeal of Baird, 113 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 637, 537 A.2d 976 (1988), a property owner appealed the denial of a special exception to use his property as a commercial dog kennel where the property was located in a residential district. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Archbishop O'Hara's Appeal
green
2 sentences2017Id. (citing Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 131 A.2d 587 (Pa. 1957)). 2017Id. (citing Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35 , 131 A.2d 587 (1957)). | 3 | 1971–2017 |
Kotzin v. Plymouth Township Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2024Zoning Board of Adjustment, 149 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1959) (finding that an increased number of patrons to a property that would cause congested traffic, induce noise, disturb the quiet and peacefulness of the neighborhood could support the denial of a special exception). 1977It further found that extension of the hours and days of operation would aggravate the existing disturbances to adjoining residents, and that the requested change for extension, if permitted, would be more detrimental to the adjoining residential neighborhood than the existing use of the structure.’ In Kotzin v. Plymouth Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 395 Pa. 125 , 149 A.2d 116 (1959), the Supreme Court denied the applicant’s request for a special exception primarily on: the basis of noise and its impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. | 2 | 1977–2024 |
Amerikohl Mining Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences2005A similar conclusion was reached in Amerikohl Mining Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Wharton Township, 142 Pa. Commw. 249 , 597 A.2d 219 (1991), where the Commonwealth Court upheld the denial of a special exception for a surface mining operation where the prox imity of the mining operation was detrimental to nearby residences. 2005A similar conclusion was reached in Amerikohl Mining Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Wharton Township, 142 Pa. Commw. 249 , 597 A.2d 219 (1991), where the Commonwealth Court upheld the denial of a special exception for a surface mining operation where the prox imity of the mining operation was detrimental to nearby residences. | 2 | 1994–2005 |
Copeechan Fish & Game Club v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2024In Copeechan, this Court stated that “[e]xcessive noise and its affect upon the surrounding residential area provide a sufficient basis for the denial of a special exception.” 378 A.2d 1303, 1305-06 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
E. Dunbar and L. Dunbar v. ZHB of the City of Bethlehem
green
1 sentence2019"Further, mere lay testimony of concerns regarding increased traffic ... is insufficient to support the denial of a special exception." Dunbar , 144 A.3d at 226 ; see Marr Development , 166 A.3d at 484 (finding objectors' evidence insufficient to establish that proposed use would generate traffic not normally generated by that type of use where no traffic study was presented and objectors simply testified as to their opinion that traffic would increase). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kern v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences1995Kern v. Zoning Hearing Board of Tredyffrin Township, 68 Pa.Cmwlth. 396 , 449 A.2d 781 (1982). 1995Kern v. Zoning Hearing Board of Tredyffrin Township, 68 Pa.Cmwlth. 396 , 449 A.2d 781 (1982). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In re Appeal of Zambrano Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1991In Re Appeal of Zambrano Corp., 49 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 6, 410 A.2d 1293 (1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hannon v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences1984Since this testimony clearly constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the court’s above-quoted finding, and since this finding was legally sufficient to support a denial of a special exception request, see Hannon v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Wilkes-Barre, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 356 , 379 A.2d 641 (1977), we find no merit in Appellants ’ assertions to contrary. 1984Since this testimony clearly constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the court’s above-quoted finding, and since this finding was legally sufficient to support a denial of a special exception request, see Hannon v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Wilkes-Barre, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 356 , 379 A.2d 641 (1977), we find no merit in Appellants ’ assertions to contrary. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
York Township Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Brown
green
2 sentences1977In York Township Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Brown, 407 Pa. 649 , 182 A. 2d 706 (1962), the court sustained the denial of a special exception in a similar situation. 1977In York Township Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Brown, 407 Pa. 649 , 182 A. 2d 706 (1962), the court sustained the denial of a special exception in a similar situation. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
William Chersky Joint Enterprises v. Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1977In William Chersky Joint Enterprises v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 426 Pa. 33 , 231 A.2d 757 (1967), the Supreme Court upheld the denial of a special exception solely on the basis of noise and stated at page 38: ‘The Board of Adjustment found that the noise now produced by appellant’s operations is a source of great- disturbance and discomfort to the inhabitants of the surrounding residential area. 1977In William Chersky Joint Enterprises v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 426 Pa. 33 , 231 A.2d 757 (1967), the Supreme Court upheld the denial of a special exception solely on the basis of noise and stated at page 38: ‘The Board of Adjustment found that the noise now produced by appellant’s operations is a source of great- disturbance and discomfort to the inhabitants of the surrounding residential area. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Sawdey Liquor License Case
green
1 sentence1952Furthermore, in the recent case of Sawdey Liquor License Case, 369 Pa. 19 (1951), the Supreme Court said (page 26) : “A municipality may not in the guise of a zoning ordinance regulate the business of dispensing liquor.” So that, if the borough, through its council, cannot do so, the board of adjustment, an agency of the council, cannot do so. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.