Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin the cash to pay the county's expenses. Brue appealed, arguing that the /~~' court had erred by: 1) allowing the county to take his property without \ ) an eminent domain proceeding; 2) not making the findings required for injunctive relief; and 3) violating his due process rights. DECISION: Affirmed. Brue first argued that state law provided that an eminent domain proceeding had to be instituted when property was taken to remove a public nuisance, but the appeals court found this assertion was without merit. Whether the removal of his things even amounted to eminent do- main, there was simply no cited authority that supported this claim. The county had statutory authority to make and enforce ordinances relating to land use. Here,. the waste management ordinance in ques- tion provided specifically that: "[i]n the event of a violation ... of this Ordinance, the County may take appropriate action to enforce this Or- dinance, including application for injunctive relief, action to compel performance, or other appropriate action." The removal of items that violated the ordinance was clearly within the county's authority. This same section of the ordinance also refuted Brue's second claim- that injunction was not appropriate. Injunction was an appropriate legal remedy for the county, especially considering it had attempted to have the property brought into compliance for five years. Brue's final argument was related to alleged due process violations, but the appeals court found this claim too was without merit. The county and the court did not deprive Brue of due process; if anything, he did not avail himself of it because he chose not to respond to the initial complaint informing him of what the county was asking for from the court and the ensuing summons telling him that no action from him would result in a default judgment entered against him. Finding no error of law and no merit in the claims brought on ap- peal, the decision of the lower court was affirmed. Zoning Decision-Township doesn't allow log processing business to be relocated to adjacent lot Business owner claims business is a permitted 'forestry' use Citation: Stoltzfus v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Eden Tp., Lancaster County, 2007 WL 3274837 CPa. Commw. Ct. 2007) PENNSYLVANIA (11/07/07)-Stoltzfus owned 67 acres of land in Eden Township's agricultural zone. In 1996, Stoltzfus received a vari- ance subject to certain conditions from the township hearing board to operate a log processing business from a portion of the property. 6 68 (-\ ~. )