setback requirement in Pennsylvania

2025Vaughn v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Shaler, 947 A.2d 218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), similar to the instant case, involved a request for a variance by estoppel to allow property owners to avoid incurring the expense of removing a retaining wall they had constructed in violation of the applicable setback requirement along their property line in order to avoid runoff onto an adjacent property.

2022Municipalities have no duty to review and revise their 62 See id. (“Habit OPCO does not assert that all of the C-4 District has been developed; rather, it asserts that the setback requirement [of the zoning ordinance] precludes it from locating a methadone clinic anywhere in the C-4 District, developed or not.”). 63 See id. at *4 (citing Eller, 198 A.2d 863 (invalidating as exclusionary an ordinance that required any mushroom house to be 1000 feet from a property boundary); Greenwood Twp. v. Kefo, Inc., 416 A.2d 583 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (finding zoning ordinance’s setback requirements exclusiona

2022Municipalities have no duty to review and revise their 62 See id. (“Habit OPCO does not assert that all of the C-4 District has been developed; rather, it asserts that the setback requirement [of the zoning ordinance] precludes it from locating a methadone clinic anywhere in the C-4 District, developed or not.”). 63 See id. at *4 (citing Eller, 198 A.2d 863 (invalidating as exclusionary an ordinance that required any mushroom house to be 1000 feet from a property boundary); Greenwood Twp. v. Kefo, Inc., 416 A.2d 583 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (finding zoning ordinance’s setback requirements exclusiona

2022Steven, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Wilkins Twp., 654 A.2d 135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 38 Exeter, 962 A.2d at 661 . 39 Id. 40 Id. at 659 . [J-5-2022] - 14 iteration of the Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 2004 to permit billboards in the B-1 zoning district, subject to a setback requirement.

2022Steven, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Wilkins Twp., 654 A.2d 135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 38 Exeter, 962 A.2d at 661 . 39 Id. 40 Id. at 659 . [J-5-2022] - 14 iteration of the Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 2004 to permit billboards in the B-1 zoning district, subject to a setback requirement.

2022Steven, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Wilkins Twp., 654 A.2d 135 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 38 Exeter, 962 A.2d at 661 . 39 Id. 40 Id. at 659 . [J-5-2022] - 14 iteration of the Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 2004 to permit billboards in the B-1 zoning district, subject to a setback requirement.

2021First, McIntyre did not involve a zoning hearing board’s review of a zoning officer’s interpretation, but an action in equity filed directly with a court of common pleas by a board of supervisors claiming the landowners were violating a setback requirement and seeking the court to direct the landowners to correct the violation. 614 A.2d at 336 .

2019Ramos, 954 A.2d at 110 (quoting Falasco v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 521 A.2d 991 , 995 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). 8 the vehicle to establish the central fact at contest here, i.e., whether the proposed tower will bring about a harm not contemplated when the legislative decision was made to permit communication towers in the C-1 Zoning District subject to a setback requirement equal to the height of the tower.

2019Ramos, 954 A.2d at 110 (quoting Falasco v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 521 A.2d 991 , 995 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). 8 the vehicle to establish the central fact at contest here, i.e., whether the proposed tower will bring about a harm not contemplated when the legislative decision was made to permit communication towers in the C-1 Zoning District subject to a setback requirement equal to the height of the tower.

2006Chester County Refuse Auth. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of London Grove Twp., 898 A.2d 680 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). [14] Based on our determination that the NMA and its implementing regulations preempt the 1500-foot setback requirement expressed in Section 804.7 a. of the Ordinance as applied to the Finishing Building and the Addition, we need not address Landowners' alternative challenges to the validity of the setback requirement or the issue of whether the ZHB erred in denying their request for a dimensional variance for the proposed Addition. [15] The Township also argues the NMA regulations do not pre

2003Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193 , 1195 n. 2 (1992). 6 .The parties agree that a 4.67% deviation from the setback requirement is a de minimis deviation from the dimensional use of the Code.

2003Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193 , 1195 n. 2 (1992). 6 .The parties agree that a 4.67% deviation from the setback requirement is a de minimis deviation from the dimensional use of the Code.

1988Joy Township v. Davies Used Auto Parts, 80 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 633 , 472 A.2d 1172 (1984), where it was held that the regulation of a junkyard was within the exercise of a townships police powers, for its contention that the Township need not adopt the setback requirement as a zoning matter.

1988Joy Township v. Davies Used Auto Parts, 80 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 633 , 472 A.2d 1172 (1984), where it was held that the regulation of a junkyard was within the exercise of a townships police powers, for its contention that the Township need not adopt the setback requirement as a zoning matter.

1985Moreover, as the trial judge noted, this application for an upward expansion of the nonconforming structure is similar to the situation in In Be: Yocum, 393 Pa. 148 , 141 A.2d 601 (1958), where the Supreme Court ruled that the addition of a second floor, in line with a nonconforming frontyard wall of the existing structure, was not a violation of the setback requirement.

1985Moreover, as the trial judge noted, this application for an upward expansion of the nonconforming structure is similar to the situation in In Be: Yocum, 393 Pa. 148 , 141 A.2d 601 (1958), where the Supreme Court ruled that the addition of a second floor, in line with a nonconforming frontyard wall of the existing structure, was not a violation of the setback requirement.

1984Restricting landfills to those operated by municipalities also was approved in Kavanagh v. London Grove Township Twp., 33 Pa. Commw. 420 , 382 A.2d 148 , (1978), affirmed by equally divided court, 486 Pa. 133 , 404 A.2d 393 (1979).

1984Restricting landfills to those operated by municipalities also was approved in Kavanagh v. London Grove Township Twp., 33 Pa. Commw. 420 , 382 A.2d 148 , (1978), affirmed by equally divided court, 486 Pa. 133 , 404 A.2d 393 (1979).

1984Restricting landfills to those operated by municipalities also was approved in Kavanagh v. London Grove Township Twp., 33 Pa. Commw. 420 , 382 A.2d 148 , (1978), affirmed by equally divided court, 486 Pa. 133 , 404 A.2d 393 (1979).

1984Restricting landfills to those operated by municipalities also was approved in Kavanagh v. London Grove Township Twp., 33 Pa. Commw. 420 , 382 A.2d 148 , (1978), affirmed by equally divided court, 486 Pa. 133 , 404 A.2d 393 (1979).

1982In Alternose Construction Co. v. East Norriton Zoning Hearing Board., 3 Pa. Commonwealth 328, 281 A.2d 781 (1971), a case involving a prior nonconformity to a setback requirement, the Commonwealth Court correctly set forth the distinction between such cases and Grubb Appeal : Alternóse relies on Grubb Appeal, 305 Pa. 619 , 151 A.2d 599 (1959), for his right to build a non-conforming addition in violation of the 25 foot setback.

1982In Alternose Construction Co. v. East Norriton Zoning Hearing Board., 3 Pa. Commonwealth 328, 281 A.2d 781 (1971), a case involving a prior nonconformity to a setback requirement, the Commonwealth Court correctly set forth the distinction between such cases and Grubb Appeal : Alternóse relies on Grubb Appeal, 305 Pa. 619 , 151 A.2d 599 (1959), for his right to build a non-conforming addition in violation of the 25 foot setback.