Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Z.B. October 25, 1998 -- Page 5 The neighbors appealed to the county board of adjustment, which affirmed the zoning administrator's decision. The board member who moved to deny the neighbors' appeal said he felt the developers' interest vested "the day they placed their earnest money down because, from that point on, they were obli- gated to buy that land." The neighbors appealed to court. They argued the developers couldn't have relied on their building permits in good faith because they knew about the rezoning application before they got their building permits. DECISION: Reversed. The developers had to comply with the county zoning ordinance as amended. They didn't have a vested right to complete the project under the old ordinance because they didn't rely in good faith on a validly issued permit. The developers knew about the neighbors.' efforts to have the district ~:ezoned before they got their building permits. In fact, they knew about the opposition almost from the outset of the project. The developers got their per- mits and began development about a month after learning of the rezoning application. The only expense they had incurred at that point was the earnest money they put down, and posslbly the cost of a preliminary site sketch. Ac- cording to the county planner, after the developers learned the property might be rezoned they asked what would protect them or what they had to do to get grand fathered. Even though they knew the county was considering rezoning the property, the developers actively sought and heeded advice on how to prevent the ordi- nance from halting their proposed development and continued to develop the property. This wasn't the type of "good faith reliance" on a valid permit that gave an owner a vested right to develop property. see also: Browning-Ferris Industries v. Guilford County ]3oard of Adjustment, 484 S.E.2d 411 (1997). see also: Keiger v. Board of Adjustraent, 190 S.E. 2d 175 (1972). Special Exception m Deli wants to expand without adding more parking spaces Citation: McGinty v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of_Pittsburgh, Commonwealth Court of.Pennsylvania, No. 2425 C.D. 1997 (1998) The Pittsburgh Deli Co. applied for a permit to expand into an adjoining parcel. Because the deli couldn't provide the 32 extra parking spaces the ex- pansion would need under a city parking ordinance, it applied for a special exception from the city's parking requirements. To be entitled to the special exception, the deli had to show it couldn't otherwise develop the property because of the land's unique geographical or topographical conditions or because of its size, shape, or dimensions. If the deli showed this, then to defeat the special exception any objectors had to show the proposed exception would be detrimental to the public health or safety.