9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teazers, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2025“Where, as here, a full and complete record of the proceedings was made before a zoning hearing board, a party in an appeal to the trial court may not raise issues not raised before the [zoning hearing] board, unless allowed by the [trial] court upon due cause shown.” Teazers, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 682 A.2d 856, 858 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); see also Section 753(a) of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 753(a); Seneca Min. 2025“Where, as here, a full and complete record of the proceedings was made before a zoning hearing board, a party in an appeal to the trial court may not raise issues not raised before the [zoning hearing] board, unless allowed by the [trial] court upon due cause shown.” Teazers, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Phila., 682 A.2d 856, 858 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); see also Section 753(a) of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 753(a); Seneca Min. | 1 | 1 |
Nowicki v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2025“Whether an applicant is seeking a use or a dimensional variance, the applicant must, at a minimum, demonstrate that an unnecessary hardship will result if a variance is denied and that the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest.” Nowicki v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Monaca, 91 A.3d 287, 292 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). 15 Here, Williams provided an overview of the proposed project at the ZHB hearing. 2025“Whether an applicant is seeking a use or a dimensional variance, the applicant must, at a minimum, demonstrate that an unnecessary hardship will result if a variance is denied and that the proposed use will not be contrary to the public interest.” Nowicki v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Monaca, 91 A.3d 287, 292 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). 15 Here, Williams provided an overview of the proposed project at the ZHB hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Markwest Liberty Midstream & Resources, LLC v. Cecil Township Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2017Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 215a-226a, Notwithstanding the testimony of these objectors, Applicant contends, the law is clear that objectors to a special exception application cannot meet their burden by merely speculating as to possible harm, but instead must show a “high degree of probability that the proposed use will substantially affect the health, safety and welfare of the community.” MarkWest, 102 A.3d at 570 (citation omitted). 2017Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 215a-226a, Notwithstanding the testimony of these objectors, Applicant contends, the law is clear that objectors to a special exception application cannot meet their burden by merely speculating as to possible harm, but instead must show a “high degree of probability that the proposed use will substantially affect the health, safety and welfare of the community.” MarkWest, 102 A.3d at 570 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2016Hogan, Lepore & Hogan v. Pequea Township Zoning Board, 638 A.2d 464 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 647 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1994). 4 In Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board, 11 A.3d 587, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), this Court defined the term “spot zoning”: Spot zoning is a singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit or detriment of the owner of that lot . . . . 2016Hogan, Lepore & Hogan v. Pequea Township Zoning Board, 638 A.2d 464 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 647 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1994). 4 In Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board, 11 A.3d 587, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), this Court defined the term “spot zoning”: Spot zoning is a singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit or detriment of the owner of that lot . . . . | 1 | 1 |
White v. Smithgreen2 sentences1996The trial court criticized the ZHB’s analysis that the proposed use of a playground by a private day care center was similar in nature to a public playground citing White v. Smith, 189 Pa. 222, 228 , 42 A. 125, 126 (1889), which states: The essential feature of a public use, is that it is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. 1996The trial court criticized the ZHB’s analysis that the proposed use of a playground by a private day care center was similar in nature to a public playground citing White v. Smith, 189 Pa. 222, 228 , 42 A. 125, 126 (1889), which states: The essential feature of a public use, is that it is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Friends of Lackawanna v. Dunmore Borough Zoning Hearing Board and Dunmore Borough
green
1 sentence2022Because Scioto presented no evidence regarding whether the accommodation was necessary, the ZHB could not and did not make any finding that the accommodation was necessary 32 to afford the proposed residents an equal opportunity.34 Dr. Tracy’s statement that “it could be medically necessary for Scioto to have six residents reside at the Property,” id. (emphasis added), was hardly “such relevant evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached.”35 Friends of Lackawanna v. Dunmore Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 186 A.3d 525 , 531 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gateside-Queensgate Co. v. Delaware Petroleum Co.
green
2 sentences2021In support thereof, she directs our attention to this Court’s decisions in Gateside-Queensgate Company v. Delaware Petroleum Company, 580 A.2d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), and Naimoli v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Chester, 425 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), for the proposition that she was a party to the proceeding before the ZHB. 2021In support thereof, she directs our attention to this Court’s decisions in Gateside-Queensgate Company v. Delaware Petroleum Company, 580 A.2d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), and Naimoli v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Chester, 425 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), for the proposition that she was a party to the proceeding before the ZHB. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Naimoli v. Zoning Hearing Board of Chester
green
2 sentences2021In support thereof, she directs our attention to this Court’s decisions in Gateside-Queensgate Company v. Delaware Petroleum Company, 580 A.2d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), and Naimoli v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Chester, 425 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), for the proposition that she was a party to the proceeding before the ZHB. 2021In support thereof, she directs our attention to this Court’s decisions in Gateside-Queensgate Company v. Delaware Petroleum Company, 580 A.2d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), and Naimoli v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Chester, 425 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), for the proposition that she was a party to the proceeding before the ZHB. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Thompson v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 1351 . 2 Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §§ 1-1041.4, 2501-2708. 7 The Associations also argue that the evidence cited by the Trial Court, a transcript containing legal argument made by Linden Vue’s counsel at a 2009 ZHB hearing, does not permit application of judicial estoppel to Majestic Hills because counsel for the Associations did not represent Majestic Hills at the time of the hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Canot v. City of Easton
green
1 sentence2018In support of this position, the Associations rely upon Canot v. City of Easton, 37 A.3d 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), where this Court held that judicial estoppel did not preclude the legal and factual argument put forth by the city because the city had not participated in the prior proceedings. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
T.M. Dunn and L.N. Dunn v. Middletown Twp. ZHB
green
1 sentence2017In rejecting the ZHB’s analysis, the trial court relied on Dunn v. Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board, 143 A.3d 494 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hogan, Lepore & Hogan v. Pequea Township Zoning Board
green
2 sentences2016Hogan, Lepore & Hogan v. Pequea Township Zoning Board, 638 A.2d 464 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 647 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1994). 4 In Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board, 11 A.3d 587, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), this Court defined the term “spot zoning”: Spot zoning is a singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit or detriment of the owner of that lot . . . . 2016Hogan, Lepore & Hogan v. Pequea Township Zoning Board, 638 A.2d 464 (Pa. Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 647 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1994). 4 In Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board, 11 A.3d 587, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), this Court defined the term “spot zoning”: Spot zoning is a singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit or detriment of the owner of that lot . . . . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Department of Environmental Protection v. Cumberland Coal Resources, LP
green
2 sentences2015However, O’Donnell moved from his former home in June 2013, id., approximately five months before issuance of the zoning enforcement notice here and eight months before the ZHB hearing. 2015However, O’Donnell moved from his former home in June 2013, id., approximately five months before issuance of the zoning enforcement notice here and eight months before the ZHB hearing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |