Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

, ,.. :: : I I I I i . . i .,;' "I i .1 . ! :; I- I i I 1 i i I i ~ ! I I j I I I I .1 I /0-"" j_. ; \ f ((> , . ...:-:----..__4.-;..,..-:-:'"........._ . . . ... '. . '. .... .' . Zoning Bulletin. January 25, 20101 Volume 41 No.2 (C'] . "In 2007, Ardmore proposed' to . install a car wash facility and a. convenience store on the.property.'~ In furtherance of that proposal,.Ar- dmore applied to the township's Zoning Hearing Board (the "Board") for, 'a1:nong other things: a' special exception to. expand the nonconform- ing gas station to include the car wash and conveni~nce store uses. The Board denied Ardmore's application. . Ardmore appealed the denial to the trial court. . The trial co~ affirmed the Board's decision. Ardmore appealed. - The Court's Decision: Judgm.~t of trial court in favor of Board affirmed. The' Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that Ardmore's proposed uses were neither continuatIons of the pre-existing n<;>ncon- forming use, nor were they expansions of the pre-existing nonconform- ing use; rather they constituted changes in use. In reaching its conclusion, the courtexplairted that a new use con- tinues or expands a nonconforming use if it is "suf:6.cie~dysimilar" to . the prior nonconforming use.. Expansions ()f nonconforming uses are protected to the extent that they are necessary to provide for the natu- ral expansion and accommodation of trade. Thus, whether a use pro- posed as an extension or expansion of an existing. nonconforming use is the same as the existing use, or it is an accessory to the existing use, the.proposed use must be shown to' be: " 'needed to provide for .... natural expansion and'the accommodation of increased trade.'" Here, the court concluded that: "Given that a car wash is not neces- sary to a gas station, and the current retail sales [were] only 2% of the' revenue, adcling a car wash and a convenience store [were] not neces- sary to the e;xpansion of the current non-conforming p.se. of the prop- . erty" as a gas station. In so concluding; the court found that Ardmore's proposed conversion of an automobile service bay at Ardmore's non- conforming gas' station to a single bay car wash constituted a change of use because the car wash wocld result in: substantial alterations to the. physical layout of the existing building; mqre vehicles lirtirtg. up and idling for longer periods of fi?1e; and specialized equipment that would generate noises that were unlike that of a gas station-both in quality and volume. The court also found that the proposed convenience store. cOD.stitu~ed a change in use because it would: increase the area devoted . to retail sales by over 1,400 square feet; and "be a destination ill itself . producing its own revenue," whereas current retail sales made up only 2 % 'of the gas station's current revenue. See also: Arter v. Philadelphia Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 916 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). See also: Harrisburg Gardens, Inc. v. Susquehanna Tp. Zoning Hear- ing Bd., 981A.2d 405 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). . @ 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 _ . U~__"'_"---;-;'___' .. 1''' . ~;. . .. ... ~-: #. . . - '. '-1 .' :...". ; 1".. .. ," ~ -..-.: -~ ',' ..)~ :-:.t' ~ .:- .;.~~ ._r' ~~~ft .. ~ -. '.:. ... : .j r : i i! ~ j :1 :i i; 'I [i ! : '/ !, Ii Ii i! ,. I! i, II :/ I: I ! :i .1 . Ii 73