Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

i ! , ! i i ! , i I I ! I ; I I I . i i . I . i , I I I , t '.,. I I I I '1 I I I I i '1. I I I I I I i ! i . i . :~ i j . .J" .'. ,';'J ".j '.' :;4 , ",;'$ ..! ~ '. . r" --.-..:;:~~' 'Cf;t'!.-: .:;:. '.". .".. : .. . " ~: #. ...... a. . " 72 ,"' :... /', -. " January 25, 201 01 Volume 41 No.2 Zoning Bulletin the dispute between the parties. Mellish's reconsideration motion con- cerned whether the June 20 decision should be reconsidered, not wheth- er Mellish was entitled to relief. Furthermore, Mellish's reconsideration motion was not an "appeal." An "appeal," explained the: court, is "[a] proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by a higher au- , thority." Here, it was the same hearings ex~er (not a higher author- ity) that issued a decision on the reconsiderat,ion motioIl_ Since "a mo- tion to reconsider is not an appeal to a higher authority, "in this ca1;e, theJup,e 20 decision was a final determination from which LUPA's stat- ute of limitations began to rtm~ In other words, "Mellish's reconsidera.- tion motion did not render the June 20 decision non-final while that motion, was pending with the hearings examiner." . The court also explained that, in accordance with the plain language of LUP A, a reconsideration motion does not toll the deadline to file a LUPA appeal. LUPA requires an aggrieved party to file a LUPA action within 21 days of the final decision, "regardless of whether reconsid- eration is pending." ' See also: Twin Bridge Marine Park, L.L.G. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 162 Wash.2d 825,175 p.3d 1050 (2008). Case Note: The court also determined that, given the facts of the case, ,Mellish also was not entitled to equitable tolling (i.e., tolling of the statute of limitations when requb::ed by justice) of LUPA's statute of limitation~. Non-conforming Uses-Applicant asks for special exception to expand non-conforming gas station. Applicant says additions of car wash and convenience store ,- at g~s station would not ,be a'change in use Citation: 200 w: Montgomery Ave. Ardmore, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Lower Merion Tp., 4009 WL 4756212 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2(09) PENNSYLVANIA (12/14/09)-This case addressed whether a new proposed use expanded a pre-existing nonconforming use or constitut- ed a change in use. The ]3ackgroundlFacts: 200 W. Montgomery Ave. Ardmore, LLC ("Ardmore") owned a small comer property in the township. The proper- ty was zoned R-7 residential. However, for many years Ardmore had used the property as a gas station with six pump islands and four vehicle repair bays. The gas station also' had limited retail sales of food and beverages. 8, @ 2010 Thomson Reuters ," , -....... -~ , . . .' ~~~~. ..~l 1:'0 r' C',l C'.'.'.': . i ; C. .. .. . J, . ._ '7 "'i\" .'. :