Although the Philadelphia Planning Commission has the authority to adopt rules based on its interpretation of a zoning code ordinance, its minor modification policy is not a “reasonable interpretive policy,” the Supreme Court has ruled.
“Appellants argue that the minor modification policy is reasonable and consistent with Section 14-226′s intent because only de minimis changes, which would have initially been approved as part of the master plan [an approved development plan], may be approved under the policy,” Justice Russell M. Nigro wrote for the majority in Bailey v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
