Marr Dev. Mifflinville, LLC v. Mifflin Township Zoning Hearing Bd., PICS Case No. 17-1144 (Pa. Commw. July 3, 2017) Cohn Jubelirer, J. (13 pages.)
Zoning board erred in denying applicant's special exception application to construct 11 duplexes because applicant met the objective requirements for a special exception, the proposed duplexes were consistent with the purpose of the ordinance and objector's expressed fears were speculative at best. Reversed.
July 28, 2017 at 02:15 PM
3 minute read
Special Exception Application • Compatibility • Duplexes • Speculative Objections
Marr Dev. Mifflinville, LLC v. Mifflin Township Zoning Hearing Bd., PICS Case No. 17-1144 (Pa. Commw. July 3, 2017) Cohn Jubelirer, J. (13 pages.)
Zoning board erred in denying applicant's special exception application to construct 11 duplexes because applicant met the objective requirements for a special exception, the proposed duplexes were consistent with the purpose of the ordinance and objector's expressed fears were speculative at best. Reversed.
Applicant owned property in a suburban residential district and applied for a special exception to construct 11 duplexes. The district permitted single family detached dwellings and limited attached dwellings to two dwelling units. Applicant planned to subdivide the 5.85 acre lot into 12 lots, one of which would contain an existing single-family dwelling, with duplexes on the other lots. The board denied the application, finding that it was not in the best interest of the properties in the general area and the community at large. On remand, the board found that the proposed project would double the number of dwelling units in the area and was not compatible with existing and adjoining land uses. The common pleas court upheld the board decision and applicant appealed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump Nominates Ex-SEC Chief Jay Clayton to Helm Southern District of New York US Attorney's Office
- 2Steward Health CEO Saga Signals Escalation of Coercive Congressional Oversight Against Private Parties
- 3'They Should Have Tried to Negotiate': Jury Finds Against Insurer
- 4Expert Testimony Regarding Sexual Grooming
- 5Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250