Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

z.g. November 25, 1999 -- Page 3 exception. Sunnyside. a. ppealed to the trial court, which affirmed the board's decision. Sunnyside.app~aled again and argued that. the def'mition of criminal deten- tion center in the c.ity of Lancaster zoning ordinance did not limit its applica- tioh to crim{nals and instead looked at the penal and corrective nature of a f.acihty. . ...... DEC~SION: Affirmed. The board was correct in granting the special exception'. ~ne state did not treat juveniles the same as criminals. Juveniles committed "delinquent acts" instead of "crimes." The state had 'a S~parate. Court system with exclusix/e jarisdiction over juyeriiles. Also, juvenile delinquents were not housed in criminal facilities unless.~e~ were Certified as adults. Fin.ally, juve- nile facilities fell under the administration of the juv.~nile court and were li- censed by the Department' of Welfare'instead of the Bureau 0fCo..rrec.tions. So',' the facility was a governmental fac!lity instead of a criminal detention facility, a use permitted as a special exception within the "mixed use" district., Once the county persuaded the zonifig hearing board that the proposed use satisfied the requirements of the ordinance, the court presumed the proposed use was consistent with the health, s~e.ty, and general welfar~ of the commu- nity, The claim that property values would fall was mere speculation. Even so, if ~i decrease in property values did occur, it would be no different than that usually associated with the construction of a community rehabilitation facility or halfway house, both of which uses were permitted uses in the "mixed use" zoning district. Citation: Sunnyside Up Corp. 'v. City of Lancaster Zoh~ng Hearing Board, Commonwealth'Court of pennsylvania, No. 514 C.D. 1999 (1999). see dlso: Eastern Con'solidated and Distributibn services Inc. v. Board Of Commissioners of Hampden Townshiti, 701 A.2d 621 (1997). see also: Manor Healthcare v. Lower Moreland Township Zoning Hearing Board, 590 A.2d 65 (1991). Special Exception -- Group wants to open mental health offices in condominium DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (10/14/99) -- A group of healthcare profession- als wanted to open offices in a condominium complex where office use was permitted by special exception. Other people were already operating offices in the complex without having obtained certificates of occupancy for commercial purposes. A hearing was held, and the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment voted to grant the applications. At a hearing on other applications for special exceptions several months later, the board told its staff to seek advice from the corporation counsel on whether the healthcare professionals' applications had been properly autho- rized and whether the condominium association should be a party to' special