Bookmark and Share
Share

Case Law Review by Frone Crawford, Jr.

Case Law Review: Compliance with MPC’s Time Limitations for Formal Decisions

2010
Philomeno and Salamone v. Board of Supervisors of Upper Merion Township This case involves complexities and nuances within the subject matter of “deemed approvals” of subdivision or land development plans, where the municipality fails to comply with time limitations for formal decisions, as set forth in Section 508 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”).
Rating
Last Modified
Apr 04, 2011
Viewed
3304 times

Case Law Review (Fall 2002)

This installation of Case Law Review focuses on three recent decisions dealing with the validity of land use regulations. The first is the most recent decision from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of “regulatory takings.” The second and third are both Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decisions. One deals with the issues of lot size and protection of environmentally sensitive land, and the other deals with quarrying.
Rating
Last Modified
Oct 14, 2010
Viewed
1832 times

Case Law Review (Fall 2003)

Organizations/Sources: Brandywine Conservancy
The focus of this edition of Case Law Review is the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in C&M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Township ZHB, a decision which has proven to be difficult to fully comprehend or predict how it will be applied in future cases. In addition, this edition includes a review of the first appellate court decision dealing with the new “forestry” provisions in Article VI of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), requiring all municipalities to allow timber harvesting as a use by right.
Rating
Last Modified
Oct 14, 2010
Viewed
1781 times

Case Law Review (Fall 2008)

Recent “Open Space Lands Act” Cases
Rating
Last Modified
Oct 16, 2009
Viewed
1823 times

Case Law Review: Philomeno and Salamone v. Board of Supervisors of Upper Merion Township

2009
This case involves complexities and nuances within the subject matter of “deemed approvals” of subdivision or land development plans, where the municipality fails to comply with time limitations for formal decisions, as set forth in Section 508 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (“MPC”).
Rating
Last Modified
Jan 11, 2010
Viewed
2153 times

Case Law Review (Spring 2005)

Organizations/Sources: Brandywine Conservancy
This article highlights three land use cases of interest. The first is from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, with the Opinion having been written by Justice Lamb just before his departure from the bench. The second is a thorough analysis of the types of issues that will not justify the denial of a subdivision or land development plan. The third is a classic example of what happens when municipal subdivision and land development requirements—here involving tree replacement—go beyond the bounds of reasonableness.
Rating
Last Modified
Oct 14, 2010
Viewed
1778 times

Case Law Review (Summer 2007)

Billboards: The regulatory process 42 years after the Federal Highway Beautification Act
Rating
Last Modified
Oct 21, 2010
Viewed
1751 times

Case Law Review: Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township.

2009
This first case leads us to revisit the subject of zoning for billboards (or “off premises signs,” as they are sometimes described).
Rating
Last Modified
Jan 11, 2010
Viewed
3544 times

Case Law Review (Winter 2004)

Organizations/Sources: Brandywine Conservancy
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court during the last few years has taken a more active role in reviewing land use cases. 2003 saw the Pennsylvania Supreme Court hand down several decisions, coinciding as well with Justice William Lamb’s tenure on the Court. Three of the Supreme Court’s important decisions were authored by Justice Lamb during the final months of his tenure and these three decisions will be the subject of this Article. It is fair to say that while Justice Lamb’s tenure on the Court was brief, his insight into land use issues as reflected in these three cases is clear evidence that he well served the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during his term on the Court.
Rating
Last Modified
Oct 14, 2010
Viewed
1685 times