Legal Opinion

Miller v. Upper Allen Township Zoning Hearing Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 31, 1987No. Appeals, 2294 C. D. 1986 and 888 C. D. 1987PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

In a zoning case, where a person objecting to development permission does not reside or have a property interest in land within the municipality whose zoning ordinance is involved, does the intervening municipal boundary in itself negate the objectors standing, as a party aggrieved, to appeal a zoning hearing board decision to court or, as an aggrieved person, to intervene in a zoning appeal filed in the court?

Is the answer to this question the same if the would-be objector is another municipality?

The record common to both of these cases poses the stated issues so…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lansdowne Borough Board of Adjustment's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. Cablevision—Division of Sammons Communications, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Atlee EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Lantz v. Zoning Hearing Board of South Middleton TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. ACS Enterprises, Inc. v. Norristown Borough Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Sunnyside Up Corp. v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Laughman v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF NEWBERRY TOWNSHIPCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. In Re Appeal of HooverCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. In Re Broad Mountain Development Co., LLCCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API