Source: https://www.landuselawinpa.com/topic/conditional-uses-and-special-exceptions/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:54:23+00:00

Document:
Where an ordinance requires a conceptual conditional use plan that indicates recorded easements, actions that meet such a requirement include, but are not limited to: (1) submitting a declaration that describes the easement and its placement; (2) submitting a copy of a subdivision plan that indicates the presence of an easement; or (3) submitting a document showing where the easement will be in relation to the proposed use. Title concerns or private property right issues are not zoning or land development matters and, therefore, must be heard by the courts.
This decision discusses the quality of evidence required for objectors to meet their burden of proof of adverse impacts that will result from a proposed use. The court also dismisses the objectors' challenge to the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance where the objector raised the argument on appeal rather than by filing a challenge in accordance with the MPC.
Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Twp. of New Sewickley, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 33 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).
A neighboring landowner successfully challenged a conditional use permit – granted by deemed approval based on the municipality’s failure to issue a written decision – as the permit was improper where the proposed use was prohibited by the applicable zoning ordinance and the landowners failed to obtain seven necessary variances prior to filing their application for conditional use permit.
In re: Appeal of Deemed Approved Conditional Use, 975 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
In issuing a special exception concerning animal operations, a municipality may impose conditions more stringent than those provided by Federal and State law, and conditions designed to promote public safety and health will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion.
Good v. Zoning Hearing Board of Heidelberg Township, 967 A.2d 421 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
Applicant’s conditional use application was denied because it failed to comply with all the requirements of the ordinance.
K. Hovnanian Pennsylvania Acquisitions, LLC v. Newtown Township Board of Supervisors, 954 A.2d 718 (2008).
An objector to a special exception application that satisfies the objective criteria for the use must produce more than speculative evidence of harm.
Tennyson v. Zoning Hearing Board of West Bradford Township, 952 A.2d 739 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
A special exception cannot be granted with conditions when all the requirements for the special exception are satisfied and there is no evidence of record supporting the imposition of the conditions.
Coal Gas Recovery, L.P. v. Franklin Township ZHB, (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
Borough of Perkasie v. Moulton Builders, Inc.
Addition of topsoil manufacturing and rock crushing at nonconforming nursery was not permitted as a natural expansion of the nonconforming use.
Harrisburg Gardens, Inc. v. Susquehanna Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 981 A.2d 405 (Pa. Commw. 2009).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.