Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

December 25, 2010 I Volume 4 ( No. 24 Zoning Bulletin Board properly applied the balancing test and considered the relevant factors in reaching its determination, the court would not overturn the denial. Here, the court found the Board had properly applied the balanc- ing test and considered the relevant factors in deciding to deny Rus- so's requested variance. The Board had found that the proposed vari- ance for front -yard parking would: "produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood;" and "have detrimental im- pacts on the neighborhood [that were] substantial in nature." Only a minority of properties in the neighborhood had front -yard parking. ,And, unlike those properties, Russo's parking area was not on the side of his residence, but was in the middle of the lot. Furthermore, Russo's front -yard parking resulted in his vehicle being parked over the city sidewalk. This "constant impediment to the [c]ity's right -of- way" created "potential safety issues to other drivers ... as well as pe- destrians." In light of these findings, the court concluded that "it was not an abuse of discretion for the Board to determine that the sub - stantial nature and negative impact of [Russo's requested variance] weighed against granting it." See also: Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732 (2002). See also: Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404 (2004). Case Note: Russo had also argued he should be granted the vari- ance to allow his front -yard parking for his "health reasons." The court disagreed. It found that there were "other feasible al- ternatives to the variance" such as "on- street parking spaces and the reservation of a handicapped spot in front of his property." Variance — Borough grants height variance for communications tower Neighbors challenge variance, arguing communications company had to show hardship Citation: In re Holtz, 2010 WL 4348136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) PENNSYLVANIA (11/04/10) —This case addressed whether a communications company, in seeking a height variance, was required to show hardship under an ordinance governing variances generally. 6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters