Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/1999

Home

Page 6... March 10, 1999 Z.B. The zoning ordinance stated access to any industrial facility couldn't be closer than 100 feet to a residential district line. A non-access state highway and property that allowed residential use surrounded the company's property. The company asked the zoning board of appeals.for a variance. To grant the variance, the board had to determine whether it would substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan and whether adherence to the ordinance would cause unusual hardship. .The board held a public hearing on the application. The company claimed it needed the variance to use the property because of the boundaries resulting from the zone change. It said certain natural conditions on the property, wet- lands, a ravine, and the non-access highway necessitated the variance. The board voted unanimously to grant the variance. It found the planning and zoning commission had created a hardship in its placement of the district line. The property couldn't be accessed at any point without violating the zon- ing regulations, and natural barriers restricted access at other locations. It also found the property couldn't be used as zoned without access. Neighbors appealed. They claimed there was no exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship and that granting the variance wouldn't be in harmony with the general' purpose of the zoning regulati°ns. : DECISION:' Affirmed. The board properly granted the varianCe. '" The z6ning regulations would deprive the company of any reasonable use of the property: The property was restricted'to the limited uses allowed in the light industry zone, but the zoning regulations prevented the company from the principal use allowed in that zone. The variance wouldn't substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan. The property was in a light industry zone. Granting the variance would allow the company to use the property for industrial or manufacturing use in accor- dance with the comprehensive plan. If the variance were not granted, the company could use the property for only agriculture. Limiting property to that use would be a severe restriction and didn't further the purpose of the zoning regulations. see also: Grillo v. Zoning Board of Appeals,. 537A.2d 1030 (1988). see also: Johnny Cake Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 429 A.2d 883 (1990). Permitted Use--Is housing racing pigeons permitted in residential district? Citation: Lex v. Zoning Hearing Board of Hampton Township, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 433 C.D. 1998 (1999) Lex owned property in a residentiaI district in Hampton Township, Pa. Permitted uses. in the district included single-family dwellings, parks and play- grounds, i private.garages,, and minor residential-related structures. Lex got a permit to build a shed on his property. He built the shed and then