Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin, <br /> <br />The court rejected the Manlys' argument that the City Council could <br />only "adopt" or "revise or amend and adopt" the recommendation, but <br />could not "override" it. The court said that such an interpretation would <br />allocate the ultimate a~thority to grant .or deny a ~.oning amendment to <br />the Commission, and thus "would be impermissibly shifting the [c]ity's <br />governance from the elected City Council to an appointed advisory com- <br />mission." Moreover, the court found such an interpretation was illogical <br />since theCity Council "obviously" would override that portion of a rec- <br />ommended act that it amends or revises. <br /> <br />See also: Houston v. Board of City Com'rs of City of Wichita, 218 Kan. <br />323, 543 P.2d 1010 (1975). <br /> <br />Case Note: The Manlys had also argued that the City Council's de- <br />cision to grant the special use permit was unreasonable and imper- <br />missible spot zoning. The district court had concluded that the City <br />Council's decision to grant the special use permit was not unreason- <br />able or impermissible spot zoning. The Manlys appealed the district <br />court's ruling on reasonableness~ On appeal they also argued that <br />the process violated their due ,process rights. The appellate court <br />found against the Manlys on these claims. <br /> <br />Preemption-Town denies coal compants <br />request for a variance from town ordinance <br />setback requirements <br /> <br />Company argues town ordinance setback requirements are <br />preempted by state law <br /> <br />Citation: Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. af Adams <br />Tp., 2008 WL 4568068 (Pa.Cammw. Ct. 2008) <br /> <br />PENN;SYLVANlA (10/15/08)-Hoffman, Mining. Company, Inc. <br />("HoffrIj,an") leased property (the "Property") in the township. In <br />2006, Boffman applied to the township's Zoning Hearing Board (the <br />"Boardh for a variance from Section 1413, Paragraph Sa of the town- <br />ship's ~~~6ning ordinance (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance required <br />surfa!+e coal mining be set back 1,000 feet from residential structures. <br />Hoff.ii];an's variance application asked the township to allow it to sur- <br />face' cpal mine within 300 feet of residences. Hoffman argued that the <br />stat"e's Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act ("SMCRA"), <br />which only required a surface coal mining setback of 300 feet from resi- <br />dences, preempted the Ordinance. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Th.omson Reuters/West <br /> <br />36 <br />