Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Z.go June 25, 1999 -- Page 5 The board denied Kissell's appeal, but granted him a partial variance for an additional storage area. The board noted the zoning ordinance didn't define "motor vehicle," but said it should be interpreted in its normal sense as a de- vice for carrying passengers or goods regardless of where it was used. Given this, the board concluded the zoning officer's interpretation of the ordinance was correct and that the display of lawn tractors, riding mowers, and other equipment in the setback area violated the zoning ordinance. Kissell appealed to court, and the court affirmed the board's decision. The court said that although it may have adopted a more narrow definition of"mo- tor vehicle," the board didn't abuse its discretion because the zoning ordinance stated a term should be given a standard, ordinary meaning if the ordinance didn't define the term. Kissell appealed again, arguing the board shouldn't have defined "motor vehicle" so broadly as to include self-propelled lawn mowers and lawn tractors. DECISION: Reversed. The zoning board should have reversed the zoning officer's enforcement order. Though undefined terms had to be given their plain, ordinary meaning, they also had to be interpreted in a sensible manner-- and any doubt had to be resolved in favor of the landowner and the least restrictive use of the land. It was difficult to see how Kissell's display of riding and self-propelled lawn mowers and lawn tractors in the setback area fell within the prohibitions against displaying "motor vehicles." Though the ordinance didn't define the term, it was doubtful that riding and self-propelled lawn mowers would be included in the term "motor vehicle" as it was commonly used -- and any doubt had to be interpreted in Kissell's favor. Citation: Kissell v. Ferguson Townshit~ Zoning Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1256 C.D. 1998 (1999). see also: Rat)aport v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Allentown, 687A,2d 29 (1996). see also: Tobin v. Radnor Towtzship Board of Commissio~Ters, 597 A.2d 1258 (J991). Accessory Use -- Village opposes beach club's request to enclose porch NEW YORK (4/26/99) -- Sunny Atlantic Partners owned a beach club in the village of Atlantic Beach, which was in the town of Hempstead. The club had a building on its property. The building's first floo[was used for beach club storage and the second floor apartment was used by the beach club caretaker as his family residence. The caretaker, who had lived in the apartment year-round for many years, maintained the club's facilities and property. Sunny wanted to enclose a 14-by-14 sundeck attached to the caretaker's apartment. It applied to the town building department for a variance. I/I