Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cellco Partnership v. North Annville Township Zoning Hearing Board

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 17, 2007Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

President Judge LEADBETTER.

Respectfully, I dissent. Because I think that the ZHB applied and common pleas sustained an erroneous, overly restrictive interpretation of the ordinance to deny Verizon’s request to locate a telecommunications (cell) tower in the rural zoning district, I would reverse.

The proper interpretation of a zoning ordinance is an issue of law over which our review is plenary. A & L. Inv. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of McKeesport, 829 A.2d 775 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). In general, as the majority states, a ZHB’s interpretation of its ordinance is entitled to great…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rolling Green Golf Club CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  2. City of Hope v. Sadsbury Township Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Smith v. ZONING BD. OF HUNTINGDONCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Phillips v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Montour Tp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Polay v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF WEST VINCENT TOWNSHIPCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

2 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