Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 3 <br />and occupy the space for a finite period of time. The lease did not give <br />AT&T exclusive rights to the leased property; nor did it convey an interest <br />in a fee; nor was the interest recorded in a deed or other public record. <br />Having found the lease did not create a new lot, the court looked at the <br />dimensions of the Symondses' property to determine if the Ordinance's lot <br />size requirements and setback requirements were met. The court found <br />they were "easily" met. <br />See also: Town ofArundel v. Swain, 374A.2d 317 (Me. 1977). <br />See also: Planning Bd. of Town of Naples v. Michaud, 444 A.2d 40 (Me. <br />1982). <br />Proceedings/Bonds—After land <br />developer appeals zoning board's <br />decision to trial court, opponent <br />then appeals trial court's decision <br />to commonwealth court <br />Parties dispute whether trial court can order <br />bond as a condition to opponent's appeal <br />under the Municipalities Planning Code <br />Citation: PPM Atlantic Renewable v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing <br />Bd., 2013 WL 6592776 (Pa. 2013) <br />PENNSYVLANIA (12/16/13)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether, in a proceeding where the land developer is the appellant before <br />the common pleas court of a zoning board's decision, Pennsylvania's <br />Municipalities Planning Code authorizes a court to require an objector to <br />post bond in connection with the objector's appeal to the Commonwealth <br />Court of a final order of a common pleas court. More specifically, the case <br />addresses whether an objector in a land -use dispute must comply with a <br />county court order to post bond as a condition of appealing to the Com- <br />monwealth Court, where the developer was the appellant in the county <br />court. <br />The Background/Facts: PPM Atlantic Renewable ("PPM") sought to <br />build 24 windmill turbines on lease land in Fayette County (the "County"). <br />In furtherance of that proposed project, PPM asked the County Zoning <br />Board (the "Board") to grant it numerous special exceptions and variances. <br />The Board granted several variances, denied others, denied special excep- <br />tion requests for eight windmills, and granted special exception requests <br />for the remaining windmills. <br />PPM appealed the Board's decision to the trial court (i.e., court of com- <br />©2014 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />