Sylvia Swede called it an “unbearable” situation.
She and her husband had lived next door to Calabrette Excavating in Richland Township for years without any complaints. Then one day, the trucks started showing up, bringing noise and dust.
They needed help, so they sought the services of a Doylestown land use lawyer and turned to the firm of Benner and Wild.
Read more about Zoning Appeal Case Study: Swede v. Richland Township
Whether you want to construct a new building or make changes to an existing one, there’s a good chance your project will mean a journey into the world of land development and zoning.
What happens when a developer needs additional land that it does not control to construct an access way in order to reach an arterial highway to make its planned shopping center a reality? The answer, obviously, is to buy an easement from the private property owner.
But what happens if the private property owner refuses to sell to the developer, or demands a price that is so unreasonable that it amounts to holding the project hostage? The answer to this common problem can be condemnation. The problem is that developers do not possess the power of eminent domain. Only the government can exercise that power and only if the purpose is for the public benefit.
This problem presented itself not long ago to the developer of Valley Gate, a mixed use, commercial development now under construction in Warrington Township. William Benner served as the developer’s land use attorney. Although the property planned for the project had frontage along a major arterial highway, municipal officials insisted that the project needed another access point to another public street. The problem was that separating the developer’s land from that street in question was a narrow strip of land owned by a private party who showed no interest in selling to a competitor.
William Benner succeeded in satisfying Township concerns that it did, indeed, possess the power to condemn a small strip of land even though superficially it appeared that the beneficiary of the condemnation was a private developer. Relying upon Appeal of Heim, and Appeal of Pine Township, that hold that a Township may exercise its eminent domain power to create a public road across privately-owned property even if a private entity – the developer – benefits as a result.
Read more about Eminent Domain, Carefully Exercised, Can Save a Private Development Project
Ask any real estate developer or small business owner—or any homeowner who needs help from the local zoning hearing board—to describe the most consistently frustrating aspect about obtaining the needed permits for their project. Almost all will have something to say about land use matters and zoning law. (And most of what they’ll say wouldn’t be appropriate for publication here.)
In Southeastern Pennsylvania (Bucks and Montgomery counties in particular), the process of developing property for any project, and then receiving all of the permits and approvals for that project, can often be fraught with unexpected obstacles and complications.
A nearby resident, for instance, might attempt to stop the project because the planned building blocks the view of the leafy street beyond. A small business owner hoping to open a cafe on that same leafy street might be surprised to learn that the neighborhood isn’t zoned for commercial use of any sort.
Read more about Do You Need a Land Use Lawyer on Your Side? The Answer is Probably ‘Yes’
On December 9, 2013 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed decisions of the Bedminster Township Building Code of Appeals Board and the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas and found that Rainbow Ridge Equestrian Center’s proposed barn with an area for exercising horses required no building permit. The Court adopted Benner and Wild’s position that an agricultural building may be both agricultural and commercial and remain exempt from permit requirements.
Benner and Wild Prevail in Zoning Appeal
Edward M. Wild, Esquire, a partner at Benner and Wild Attorneys at Law who has represented developers, national and local businesses and property owners involved in zoning appeals and disputes, successfully argued to the Commonwealth Court that a barn building that has commercial attributes can maintain its status as an agricultural building so long as access to some members of the public is regulated through restrictions that included gates and locked key pads and the members of the public had contracts with Rainbow Ridge. Attorney Wild convinced the Court that the partially constructed barn would not be open to the public any more than a private residence is open to the public. Read more about Benner and Wild Prevail For Rainbow Ridge Equestrian Center In Zoning Appeal Battle
William Benner, of Benner and Wild, in Doylestown, PA, served as the land use attorney for the recently approved Joseph Stanley Park project. The project was approved by the New Hope Borough Council on January 15.
Benner was very proud to be a part of the final project approval. The approval by the borough authorizes the redevelopment of the historic Cintra Mansion, located in New Hope Borough. The Cintra Mansion which is recognized as a historic treasure had recently fallen into disrepair.
Read more about Benner Serves as Land Use Attorney in Joseph Stanley Park Project
William Benner successfully represented a group of residents in Bedminster Township of Bucks County who had opposed the introduction of a commercial enterprise into their residentially-zoned community.
As sometimes happens in zoning cases, the zoning hearing board was sympathetic to the applicant granting a use variance relying on the de minimis variance doctrine as its legal foundation.
The applicant successfully argued to the zoning hearing board that his planned commercial enterprise of selling autos over the internet had little or no tangible impact on the neighborhood. The applicant could not qualify for a no-impact home based business because his business plan included storing up to five cars on the property. Feeling aggrieved, several neighbors appealed the decision to the Bucks County Court contending that the zoning hearing board improperly expanded the de minimis variance doctrine.
Read more about Real Estate Attorny Case Study: Zoning Appeals Bucks County