Legal Opinion
In re Appeal of deBotton
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 12, 1984No. Appeal, No. 2368 C.D. 1982PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Judge Blatt,
Following the denial of a permit to develop a 9.722 acre parcel located at 950 Baltimore Pike in Springfield Township (Township) for commercial use, Claude deBotton (landowner) filed a petition with the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township (Board) seeking a “validity” variance and/or a special exception and, in the alternative, challenging the substantive validity of the Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 1004 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC)1
The Board denied the application for a “validity” variance on the ground that the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- National Land & Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Schubach v. SilverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Pyzdrowski v. Pittsburgh Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
- Eves v. Zoning Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Glorioso AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- McClimans v. Board of SupervisorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Pietropaolo v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. ZHB, TREDYFFRIN TWP.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Serban v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- McCLIMANS v. BD. OF S., SHENANGO T.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.