Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The court ordered the board to issue the necessary permits without conditions, and the board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. A zoning board could, where appropriate, impose "reasonable condi- tions and restrictions as [were] directly related to and incidental to the proposed use of ... property," and "aimed at minimizing the adverse im- pact to an area that might result from the grant of a variance or a spe- cial permit." However, if a board imposed conditions that were unrea- sonable or improper, those conditions could be annulled. The appeals court here noted that it was "undisputed" that the ev- idence submitted to the board established that Rendely's intended use of the proposed structure qualified as an accessory use. Specifically, the court found that the inclusion of these contested design elements "would not necessarily alter the proposed building's otherwise acknowl- edged status as 'a subordinate building.''' The court continued that: "[t]hese design elements were not expressly prohibited in an accessory building under the [zoning] Code, and there was no evidence in the record to suggest that, by including them in the .structure, the petitioiier intended to use the structure as anything other than an accessory building for accessory uses." The appeals court concluded that, based on the evidence, it appeared that the conditions imposed on the design features were based solely on "the conjecture and speculation of members of the Zoning Board of Ap- peals." Accordingly, those conditions had been properly annulled by the lower court. In addition, the condition that provided that the proposed building could not be used .as habitable living space was neither unrea- sonable nor improper, and the lower court had correctly affirmed it. Taking-Property owner claims court, county made procedural errors calculating condemnation compensation County argues appeal in state court precludes landowner from bringing federal case Citation: Whittaker v. County of Lawrence, 2007 WL 3053310 (W:D. Pa. 2007) PENNSYLVANIA (10/15/07)-Whittaker owned a residence on ap- proximately 84 acres of land in a developD;lent known as Millenium Park in Lawrence County. The Lawrence County Economic Develop- ment Corporation and the Redevelopment Authority entered into a "Millenium Park Eminent Domain Agreement" with Whittaker and 6 56