Opinion

Joe Darrah, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board

  • 928 A.2d 443
  • 2007 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 372
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 9, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Leadbetter
On the bench
Leadbetter, Pellegrini, Leavitt
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.4%

without a request for specific relief, a zoning hearing board lacks the authority to interpret an ordinance and any such interpretation would be an impermissible advisory opinion

How later courts described this case

  • without a request for specific relief, a zoning hearing board lacks the authority to interpret an ordinance and any such interpretation would be an impermissible advisory opinion

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DISSENTING OPINION BY

President Judge LEADBETTER.

I must respectfully dissent. Given that the Township is seeking to enforce the height provision of the junkyard ordinance, I believe the Zoning Officer’s refusal to reclassify the business use on this property is a “determination” appealable to the Zoning Hearing Board under Section 909.1(a)(3) of the Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, added by the Act of December 21, 1988, P.L. 1329, 53 P.S. § 10909.1(a)(3) and North Codorus Township v. North Codorus Township Zoning Hearing Board, 873 A.2d 845 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). Therefore, the Zoning Hearing Board did have jurisdiction and we should reach the merits.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.