A drive-through window may seem like a small addition to an established convenience store, but for one Pennsylvania couple, getting permission to build one turned into a legal battle lasting nearly six years. Their proposal involved a 5-7-acre truck stop that already sold freshly prepared food and served motorists around the clock. However, local zoning officials refused permission, arguing that township regulations prohibited drive-through facilities at convenience stores.The dispute reached the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which ruled on October 27, 2026, in Jyotsna Jivani and Anil Jivani v. East Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board and East Lampeter Township, according to the court opinion available on Justia. The court overturned the lower court’s decision upholding the denial, finding conflicting provisions in the township’s zoning ordinance. It also recognised the proposed facility as a natural expansion of the existing business and sent the case back to the zoning board for further proceedings.
A truck stop looking to expand its food service
Jyotsna and Anil Jivani own a property at 2622 Lincoln Highway East in East Lampeter Township, Lancaster County. The approximately 5-7-acre site contains a convenience store, petrol station and truck stop operating as a lawful nonconforming use in an agricultural zoning district. The store operates 24 hours a day and includes food counters operated by Subway and Champ’s Fried Chicken. Customers can purchase freshly prepared meals, while passenger vehicles and tractor-trailers use separate fuelling facilities.The couple wanted to add a drive-through window so customers could order and collect food without entering the store. The proposal was influenced partly by changing customer preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic, when some customers, particularly elderly people, were uncomfortable entering indoor spaces. During a December 2020 zoning board hearing, Anil Jivani explained that the franchise was insisting on curbside delivery or a pickup window. He argued that the facility would give existing customers another way to purchase food rather than introduce an entirely new business.
Why township officials rejected the proposal
The couple submitted their zoning permit application around October 2020. After the township denied it, they appealed to the East Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board in November 2020, seeking approval or, alternatively, a special exception or variance. Their proposal involved replacing an existing bus-passenger drop-off lane beside the store with drive-through lanes. The design included a nine-foot-wide lane that would divide into two lanes, allowing vehicles to bypass the queue when necessary.The facility would provide approximately 120 feet of queuing space, accommodating four cars before the ordering kiosk and four afterwards. Only passenger vehicles would be allowed to use it. The construction also required a 38-square-foot addition at the rear of the building, offset by removing an equivalent area near the front entrance. Consequently, there would be no net increase in the store’s usable floor area.Township officials argued that the zoning ordinance prohibited drive-through facilities at convenience stores. The board accepted this interpretation and denied the application on January 14, 2021. The Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas upheld the decision on August 14, 2025.
Appeals court identifies conflicting zoning rules
The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court examined two provisions of the township’s zoning ordinance. Section 2020 defined a convenience store as a retail establishment selling groceries and ready-to-eat food, but excluded businesses with drive-through facilities. However, Section 23200 contained specific provisions addressing drive-through service lanes at convenience stores, including requirements for vehicle queuing.The judges found that the two provisions contradicted each other. Under Section 603.1 of Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code, ambiguities in zoning restrictions must be interpreted in favour of the property owner. The township’s zoning officer had testified that the permissive language was left in the ordinance by mistake during a 2016 overhaul. However, the court found that the conflicting provisions created ambiguity and that state law required the matter to be resolved in favour of the property owners. It therefore concluded that the zoning rules did permit drive-through facilities at convenience stores.
Judges recognise the proposal as a natural expansion
The court also considered whether the proposed drive-through represented a natural expansion of the couple’s existing nonconforming business. It found that the facility would not fundamentally change the store’s primary activity of selling retail goods and prepared food. Instead, it would provide another way for customers to access products already available inside.The judges considered the property’s history, including a 1988 zoning decision recognising a fast-food restaurant as part of the approved use, with seating for 30 to 35 customers. They also noted that the proposed changes involved limited physical alterations, no increase in overall floor area or paved lot coverage, and the replacement of a largely unused bus drop-off area.On October 27, 2026, the Commonwealth Court reversed the lower court’s order and remanded the case to the East Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The ruling is non-precedential and does not automatically grant final construction approval. However, it removes the legal basis for the original denial and gives the couple another opportunity to pursue their proposed drive-through after years of litigation.
