individual

Proposed natural gas pipeline project would impact wetlands. State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review. Court found that it has jurisdiction, State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary.

City sought land to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to impact on access to her property and because the buffer portion of the land would be taken in fee. Court held that the City did not need to complete a final plat by a specific date, that the decision to take buffer land in fee was not arbitrary, and that emininent domain does not prevent the City from taking a fee interest in the buffer land.

Landowners brought suit against county for rezoning adjacent land without proper notice. The court ruled that the landowners failed to allege sufficient injury to challenge the county's ordinance.

Property owner sought to rezone land to be included as part of nearby industrial park despite property being designated as a buffer zone between the park and rural agriculatural land. Property owner's applicationw as denied by the Urban County Planning Board Commission. The court ruled that the Commission's denial of the application was suported by substantial evidence.

Nearby property owners brought special action aginst City regarding rezoning to construct a large chain discount store due to adverse effects. Court held that the property owners did not have taxpayer standing to challenge rezoning as their property was not located close enough to the parcel to show particularized harm.

Neighbor complained to code enforcement about property owner's outdoor lighting. Property owner sought stalking injunction in response. Court ruled evidence did not support willful and malicious conduct to support stalking injunction.

County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a special exception to a property owner for construction of a banquet hall within an agricultural zoning district despite neighbor objections based on adverse effects to community. The court ruled that the BZA did not act outside of its statutory authorization and the proposed facility was acceptable for a special exception.

Plaintiff developer applied for a conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. The County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. The Court found that the laywitness concerns were contained in the list of reasons set out in section 408.4 of the Code which support the denial of a request for a conditional use permit. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the County Board of Adjustment did not err in denying plaintiff developer the application for a conditional use permit.

Neighboring residents objected and filed complaint against Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (Commission) for plans to expand the Plainfield Service Plaza without conducting an environmental impact study. Court held that the Commission was potentially required to conduct an environmental impact study under the Clean Streams Law. The Court overruled the Commission's preliminary objections to the complaint and remanded the case to the trial court.