We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Scott Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 18 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), decided April 18, 2011, the Commonwealth Court examined an appeal by local neighbors regarding a dimensional variance that allowed NorthEast Pennsylvania SMSA Limited Partnership (Verizon) to construct a cell phone tower near the neighbors’ properties
In Pohlig Builders, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of Schuylkill Township, 15 A.3d 563, 2011 WL 2084174, Pa. Cmwlth, March 17, 2011 (No. 782 C.D. 2010), the Commonwealth Court addressed the Schuylkill Township Board of Supervisors’ zoning appeal based on a variance granted to Pohlig Builders (the developers) to disturb an area of steep slopes such that the developers could construct their proposed residential development
The case of PPM Atlantic Renewable v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Bd., A.3d , 2011 WL 1753018, Pa. Cmwlth., May 3, 2011 (No. 1431 C.D. 2010), demonstrates the application and effect of Section 1003-A of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 P.S. 11003-A, which allows a party to request a bond in Common Pleas Court after the court disposes of a land use matter and a party takes a further appeal
On October 3, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in a case whose outcome may change federal takings and the just compensation owed property owners subjected to a temporary physical taking by the government
