Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 4 -- September 10, 1998 Z.B. The zoning ordinance was clear and unambiguous, and didn't authorize agribusiness as a separate land use, as O'Hearn claimed. The term "agribusiness" in the language the "[k]eeping and raising of domestic stock for agribusiness, breeding, recreation or show" simply provided the context in which domestic stock could be raised. The ordinance allowed the "keeping of stock," not all types of agribusiness. The town didn't violate O'Hearn's equal protection.rights by prosecuting only O'Hearn. The town primarily enforced its ordinances by conducting an investigation whenever it received a complaint about a possible zoning viola- · tion. When the town investigated O'Hearn's property it investigated others as well, and all investigations were conducted in the same manner. The reason O'Hearn was the only landowner prosecuted was because he was the only one who didn't take advantage of the town's grace period and apply for a condi- tional use permit; the other owners either shut down or sought a permit, so they weren't cited. O'Hearn failed to prove the town intentionally or arbitrarily discriminated against him. see also: Village of Menomonee Falls v. Michelson, 311 N.W.2d 658 (1981). Home Business -- Owner wants to run engineering business in residential district Citation: Allegheny West Civil Council Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 70 W..D. Appeal Docket 1_996 (J 998) Youchak owned a building in a multiple-family district in Pittsburgh. The building had been vacant for more than 20 years, even;though in 1984 the city had issued variances allowing the owner to change it' from a two-family to a seven-family building. In 1994, Youchak sought to convert the property to a single-family build- ing with an engineering business on the first floor. He also asked for a variance allowing him to hire employees, because the zoning ordinance didn't allow home businesses to have employees. The city's zoning ordinance allowed home businesses as a special excep- tion in a residential district provided the use was "customary and accessory" to residential use. The city zoning board of adjustment granted Youchak a special exception to run an engineering business as a home occupation and a variance allowing him to hire employees. The board found the proposed use would be consistent with the neighborhood, noting there were commercial and industrial -- but minimal residential -- uses on the street. According to the board, Youchak met all but one of the requirements for a special exception: that there be no employees. The board said Youchak was entitled to a variance because the property was surrounded by commercial and industrial uses that made it virtually impossible to use it for residential purposes.