Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.go June 25, 1999--Page 7 White appealed, arguing the court had no authority to order him to demol- ish the other properties because those properties weren't listed in the city's original complaint. DECISION: Order vacated. The trial court had no authority to order White to demolish the additional properties. There was no problem with the demolition order for the first property, which White never appealed. That property was listed in the city's complaint against White. But the fact White owned other properties on the same city block didn't mean the city could, in effect, begin a new abatement proceeding against the other properties simply by mentioning the-violations in the abatement pro- ceeding regarding the originally cited property. Allowing this would deprive White of his right to raise objections or defend his rights. It was irrelevant that the court granted the city's request to amend its origi- nal complaint to include the additional properties even though White was prop- erly notified of the court's ruling on the matter, because the city never actually followed through and amended its complaint. Citation: City of Philadelphia v. White, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 3314 C.D. 1997 (1999). see also: Burger v. Borough oflngram, 697A.2d 1037 (1997). see also: Hartman v. Peterson, 265 A.2d 127 (1970). Variance Owner seeks variance to keep farm animals in residential area NEW YORK (5/13/99) -- Conte owned property zoned "residential hamlet" in the town of Norfolk. In 1997, he applied to the zoning appeals board for a variance so he could continue to keep a limited number of farm animals on the property for personal consumption. The animals were kept in a barn constructed with a building permit in 1984 and renovated in 1989. To be entitled to a variance based on unnecessary hardship, Conte had to show the property couldn't yield a reasonable return if it was used for permit- ted purposes as currently zoned, the hardship resulted from unique characteris- tics of the property, and the proposed use wouldn't alter the neighborhood's character. Conte claimed he needed tff>raise farm animals to provide food for his and the former owners' families and said he couldn't transfer or rent the property without first offering it to the former owners. He said he should be able to keep the animals as a legal nonconforming use because the former oxvners had con- tinuously kept animals on the property for their own consumption since they bought the property in 1982. Conte claimed farm animals had been kept on the property for many years before the previous owners bought it. Finally, Conte claimed he should be allowed to keep the animals because the former owners relied on the issuance of building permits in building and later renovating the barn that housed the animals. //_3