Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Help the Animals be "operated for the purpose of . . . boarding . . . fo+) <br />compensation." The court agreed with Ruley that it was. the purpose of <br />the establishment that determined whether or not it was a kennel; it was <br />not whether it ever received. donations. The court found. the purpose of <br />Help the Animals was to rescue unwanted cats and dogs and save them <br />from euthanization while a suitable home was found. The purpose was <br />not for Ruley to. make a living. Given the purpose of Help the Animals, <br />the court concluded that it did not fit within the ~ 201's definition of <br />"kennel". Thus, the court concluded, Ruley was not required to obtain a <br />special exception under ~ 601. <br /> <br />See also: Arter v. Philadelphia Zoning Ed. of Adjustment, 916 A.2d 1222 <br />(Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007), appeal denied, 594 Pa. 691, 934 A.2d 75 (2007). <br /> <br />See also: City o(Hope v. Sadsbury Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 890 A.2d <br />1137 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). <br /> <br />Case Note: The township had also filed a complaint seeking civil <br />penalties from Ruley to recover fines, costs and attorneys fees for <br />prosecuting the violation of the zoning ordinance. The trIal court en- <br />tered a total award against Ruley of $17,732.85. On appeal, Ruley <br />had argued that even if Help the Animals was found to be a kennel, <br />the amount of attorney fees awarded was unreasonable. Because- the ) <br />coUrt: concluded that Ruley did not violate ~601 of the zoning or- <br />dinance requiring a special exception, it held that she could not be <br />sanctioned for fines, costs and attorneys fees related to prosecution <br />of a violation of ~ 601. <br /> <br />Variance-Town denies landowner variance to <br />construct dwelling on undersized lot <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Landowner claims hardship and asserts denial is an <br /> <br />unconstitutional government taking <br /> <br />Citation: Rural Water Co., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of <br />Ridgefield, 287 Conn, 282, 947 A.2d 944 (2008) <br /> <br />CONNECTICUT-Rural Water Company, Inc. (RWC) was a water sup- <br />ply company. It owned several wells in the town. One of those wells was lo- <br />cated on a 0.284 acre parcel in a subdivision in an RA residential zone in the <br />town (the Property). That well supplied water to the subdivision. After RWC <br />became aware of high levels of radon in the well water; it discontinued use <br />of the well. RWC then sought to sell the Property to a builder. In furtherance <br />of that sale, RWC applied to the town for a variance to use the Property <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest <br /> <br />52 <br />