Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The court found that the Ordinance did not regulate the methods <br />of deriving coal. Rather, the Ordinance "merely contain[ed] a required <br />minimum numerical distance from which surface mining [could] be <br />conducted next to a residential structure and how that permitted use <br />was approved." Accordingly, the court concluded that because the .or- <br />dinance regulated land use control only, it therefore was not preempted <br />by S 17,1. <br /> <br />See also: Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Tp., 499 Pa. 80, 451 <br />A.2d 1002 (1982). <br /> <br />See also: Warner Co. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Tredyffrin Tp., 148 Pa. <br />Commw. 609, 612 A.2d 578 (1992). <br /> <br />Case Note: Hoffman had also presented alternative arguments that <br />it was entitled to a validity variance or a dimensional variance. The <br />court rejected these arguments, finding: (1) Hoffman failed to show <br />that the Property did not have' any other economic use except to be <br />mined for coal; and (2) in any case, the Board properly denied the <br />variance based on its findings (which were supported by substan- <br />tial evidence) that granting a variance would be detrimental to the . "- <br />health, welfare and safety of the community. ) <br /> <br />PowersNalidity of Zoning Regulations---.,- <br />Planning board denies developer's request for <br />a special permit to build a subdivision <br /> <br />Developer argues denial is based on board's illegal <br />extinguishment of its easement and an invalid zoning by-law <br /> <br />Citation: Wall Street Development Corp. v. Planning Bd. of Westwood, <br />72 Mass. App. Ct. 844, 894N.E.2d 1139 (2008) "- <br /> <br />MASSACHUSETTS (10/14/08)--,Wall Street Development Corpo- <br />ration ~~"WSDC") owned twenty acres (the "Property") in the town. <br />WSD9'sought to develop a ten-lot subdivision on the Property. <br />Section 8.5 of the town's zoning by-law provided that a developer pro- <br />posink a major residential development (more than four lots) could not <br />simplY. submit a plan to the Board directly for its consideration. Rather, <br />it l)eqliired such developers. to apply for a special permit accompanied <br />by two plans: (1) a "conventional" plan, showing complete compliance <br />with all board rules and regulations and with the known requirements <br />of the board of health and the conservation commission; and (2) an "al- <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest <br /> <br />38 <br />