Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 8 <br />which applies to use variances. The court found that the BZA had incor- <br />rectly applied the more stringent "unnecessary hardship" test. Since <br />Wind Force was requesting area variances, the BZA should have <br />reviewed the requests under the more lenient "practical difficulty" stan- <br />dard, said the court. <br />See also: Cromwell v. Ward, 102 Md. App. 691, 651 A.2d.424 (1995). <br />See also: Trinity Assembly of God of Baltimore City, Inc. v. People's <br />Counsel for Baltimore County, 407 Md. 53, 962 A.2d 404 (2008). <br />See also: Montgomery County v. Rotwein, 169 Md. App. 716, 906 <br />A.2d 959 (2006). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the appellate court found it "clear that Wind Force adduced <br />evidence of several features of each of the co -applicant properties that sug- <br />gest[ed] that the separation and setback requirements operate differently on <br />each of those properties than they operated on other surrounding properties." <br />The court, however, declined to rule on the merits, instead remanding the task <br />for the BZA. <br />Preemption/Pipeline—Opponents <br />say pipeline construction in <br />residential districts in township <br />violate township's zoning <br />ordinance <br />Pipeline developer argues Pennsylvania's Public <br />Utility Code preempts township's zoning <br />ordinance <br />Citation: Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., <br />2018 WL 943041 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (02/20/18)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a municipal zoning ordinance that prohibited natural gas <br />pipeline construction in residential districts was preempted by Pennsyl- <br />vania's Public Utility Code. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2012, Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. ("Sunoco") <br />announced its intent to develop an integrated pipeline system for <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />