Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/1999

Home

Z.B. February 25, 1999 Page 7 . · The city's zoning regulations required a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet to build a house. Forrester's property was either 2,783 square feet or 13,000 square feet, depending upon' whether the abutting public trail was included. Relying on a variety of evidence, including county assessor's maps and the property description in Forrester's 1993 deed, the city found that the trail was part of Forrester's lot. The. city determined the lot was big enough for Forrester to build a house. .' Two of Forrester's neighbors appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. They argued the county or state government and the public not Forrester -- owned title to the trail area, so the area couldn't be included in determining Forrester's lot size. The board affirmed the city's decision, and the neighbors appealed to court. DECISION: Affirmed. The city properly included the easement area in Forrester's lot size, so Forrester's lot was buildable. It was "black letter law" that an easement created a right to use another's land but left title to the land itself in the owner. Thus, the public easement for the county road gave the county the right to build a road over Forrester's prop- erty, but it didn't give the county title to the property. That the county trans- ferred its easement to the land to the state parks department so it could build a walking trail didn't mean Forrester lost title to the land. The public had a right to travel on the easement, but the property was still Forrester's and therefore could be considered in determining whether his was a buildable lot. Moreover, the area in question was included in Forrester's deed, and ali of the owners of property abutting the trail had paid taxes on the area in question until 1962, when adjustments were made as part of a statewide tax-relief program. see also: Rendler v. Lincoln County, 709 P. 2d 721 (1985). see also: Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. City of Portland, 711. P. 2d 119 (1.985). Appeal -- Neighbor fails to specify reason in her variance appeal Citation: Gall v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Milford Township, Commonwealth Court of Penngylvania, No.' 673 C.D. 1998 (1999) Gall lived in Upper Milford Township, Pa. Gall's neighbor asked the town- ship for a variance allowing her to build a shed on her property; Gall opposed her request. In 1997, the township zoning board granted the neighbor a vari- ance for the shed. Gall appealed to court. Her appeal notice stated she was challenging the board's decision to grant the variance, but the notice failed to provide any reason for her appeal. The zoning board asked the court to dismiss Galt's appeal based on her failure to provide a reason for her appeal-. The board claimed state law required land use appeals to contain a reason so the board could present a defense.