Source: https://www.landuselawinpa.com/topic/municipal-procedure/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:34:47+00:00

Document:
The decision by members of a Board of Supervisors denying a request for special exception is valid and enforceable despite the failure of the board members to take their official oath or file financial statements, and the void ab initio doctrine does not apply to invalidate their actions.
Quest Land Development Group, LLC v. Township of Lower Heidelberg, 971 A.2d 540 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
Where a property owner receives subdivision and land development approval for subdivision into one-acre lots, but fails to complete the required improvements within 3 years (5 years under the current version of the MPC), the property is subject to the provisions of the new ordinance restricting development to two-acre lots, whether or not the landowner paid taxes assessed on the one-acre lots prior to the zoning change.
Gallagher v. Chestnuthill Township, 968 A.2d 253 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
An entity with an option to lease a property for which it seeks land development approval for a wind farm has an ownership interest sufficient to constitute an “applicant” and “landowner” as required by the Municipalities Planning Code, and a municipality may grant a waiver from a provision of its ordinance if it would exact undue hardship or the request for waiver is for an innovative design that advances the purpose of the ordinance.
Tioga Preservation Group v. Tioga County Planning Commission, No. 1749 C.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 77 (Pa. Commw. March 3, 2009).
If a third party is permitted to participate, as a party, in an action before a Zoning Hearing Board, that party has status to appeal any adverse decision regardless of whether he has an adverse, direct, immediate or substantial interest in the decision as generally required to grant standing under Pennsylvania law.
Thompson v. Zoning Hearing Board of Horsham Township, 963 A.2d 622 (Pa. Commw. 2009).
An applicant is entitled to approval of their final subdivision plan if their preliminary plan was approved as long as the final plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan.
Rickert v. Latimore Township, 960 A.2d 912 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Applicant was entitled to a deemed approval of its conditional use application because the Borough failed to hold a hearing within 60 days of receipt of the application. Once an application is accepted and retained by a municipality, the time limitations of the MPC begin.
Nextel Partners, Inc. v. Clarks Summit Borough, 958 A.2d 587 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Applicant was not entitled to a deemed approval when the Township failed to adhere to the time periods set forth in the MPC because Applicant waived its right to a deemed approval by actively participating in eighteen hearings on the matter.
Southeastern Chester County Refuse Authority (SECCRA) v. Board of Supervisors of London Grove Township, 954 A.2d 732 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Property owner was entitled to a deemed approval of a special exception application because the ZHB failed to issue a written decision within 45 days of the final hearing.
WeCare Organics, LLC v. ZHB of Schuylkill County, 954 A.2d 684 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
The deemed approval in Section 508(3) of the Municipalities Planning Code applies only to the 15-day period set forth in the MPC and not to the five-day period of Section 22-303(3)(E) of the Township SALDO.
LVGC Partners, LP v. Jackson Township Bd. of Supervisors, — A.2d —-, 2008 WL 2002504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
Under the Municipalities Planning Code, personal notice is not required for a hearing regarding the adoption of a zoning ordinance.
In Re: The Appeal of LVGC Partners, LP and Lebanon Valley Golf Club, Inc., from the Decision of the Jackson Township Zoning Hearing Board on the Petition regarding the Validity of Adoption of Ordinance No. 5-2006 —A.2d —-, 2008 WL 2002412 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

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