PA Appeals Court Find Competing Hotel Owner Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Zoning Board Decision

PA Appeals Court Find Competing Hotel Owner Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Zoning Board Decision

By On In Attorney
This post was authored by Gabriella Mickel, JD Candidate 2024, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University In this case, a competing hotel owner, South Bethlehem Associates, LP, challenged the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Bethlehem Township Pennsylvania to grant variances to Central PA Equities 30, LLC for the construction of a new hotel two blocks away. The main issue at hand is whether the competing hotel owner has the legal standing to seek a judicial review of the zoning board’s decision. The court noted that ordinarily, standing requires a showing of adverse impact, that reflects a…
PA Appeals Court Find Competing Hotel Owner Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Zoning Board Decision

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Legislative Conditions Are Subject To Nexus-And-Proportionality Requirements

By On In Attorney
This post was authored by Robert Thomas, Esq. and originally appeared on the InverseCondemnation Blog and is reposted with permission. See, https://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2023/05/ca6-legislative-conditions-are-subject-to-nexus-and-proportionality-requirements.html The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Knight v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, No. 21-6179 (May 10, 2023) held that conditions imposed on every development — and not just ad hoc administratively-imposed conditions — must conform to the Nollan-Dolan-Koontz close nexus and rough proportionality standards. The Sixth Circuit has added to the growing split in the lower courts about whether legislatively-imposed conditions on development which cover everyone are, as some courts characterize them, mere land use regulations subject…