Pennsylvania Court Grants Drive-Through Permit to Jivani Truck Stop

The Commonwealth Court’s decision overturns a 2025 lower‑court ruling that had upheld the township’s denial of a drive‑through permit for the Jivani couple’s truck stop on 2622 Lincoln Highway East. In a 23‑page opinion, the judges found that the township’s zoning code contained contradictory provisions that left the matter ambiguous, and state law requires such ambiguity to be resolved in favor of the property owner.

The truck stop, covering roughly 5‑7 acres, has operated 24 hours a day with a convenience store, petrol station and food counters run by Subway and Champ’s Fried Chicken. The Jivanis, who own the property, say the drive‑through would simply add another way for customers to pick up ready‑to‑eat meals without entering the store, a service that has become more popular since the COVID‑19 pandemic.

In December 2020, the Jivanis submitted a zoning permit application to replace a bus‑drop‑off lane with a nine‑foot‑wide drive‑through that would split into two lanes, allowing up to four cars to queue before and after the ordering kiosk. The proposal only required a 38‑square‑foot addition at the rear of the building, offset by removing an equivalent area near the front entrance, so there would be no net increase in usable floor area. The township’s Zoning Hearing Board denied the request on Jan. 14, 2021, citing a provision that barred drive‑throughs at convenience stores.

The Commonwealth Court examined Sections 2020 and 23200 of the township 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, while Section 23200 explicitly addressed drive‑through service lanes, including vehicle queuing requirements. The judges concluded that the two sections conflicted, and under Section 603.1 of Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code, such ambiguities must be interpreted in favor of the property owner. The township’s zoning officer admitted the wording was left in by mistake during a 2016 overhaul.

The court also weighed whether the proposed drive‑through represented a natural expansion of the existing nonconforming business. It found that the addition would not change the store’s primary activity—selling retail goods and prepared food—but simply provided another means of access for customers who already patronized the facility. This reasoning aligns with the couple’s claim that the drive‑through would serve existing clientele rather than attract a new market.