Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Z.B. January 15, 1997 -- Page 3 at least one incorrect fact. Two of the county's findings contained errors, and the findings played a significant role in the county's effort to show rough proportionality. The county had to fix the errors and reassess whether the conditions ii imposed on the developer were roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision. Even a single erroneous finding that played a significant role in'showing rough proportionality would require reversal. The county could consider the benefits the road improvements provided to the subdivision in considering whether rough proportionality existed. However, municipalities had to assess differently conditions that benefited a subdivision and pure exactions, which only mitigated a development's impacts on the public. The hearing officer was wrong to state that Dolan "disapproved" of mathematical calculations, such as the traffic figures. Dolan neither required nor barred precise calculations. In fact, it requiredsome quantification. However, road improvement conditions did not have to correlate exactly with the traffic a development would generate. Residential developments could have various impacts on street systems, and municipalities could consider all of them. see also: Dolan v. City ofTigard, 5]2 U.S. 374, ]14 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (]994). see also: J.C. Reeves Corp. v. Clackamas County, 887 P. 2d 360 (1994). Variance -- Church neighbor objects to proposed handicap access ramp Citation: Rhoads v. Zoning Hearing Board, 683 A.2d ]262 (Pennsylvania) 1996 In 1919, the Antioch Baptist Church was built in the borough of Sewickley, Pa. Decades later, the borough enacted a zoning ordinance. The church was built on a narrow' lot on the south side of an east-west street. It had a short se~ of steep steps on an east-side alleyway. It had no setback on the north side and was nonconforming as to side yards. There was a parking lot on the south side of the church. Rhoads lived next to the church on the west side. The church building was about 5 to 10 feet from his property line. Antioch planned to build an access ramp for people with physical disabilities. The church had about 75 parishioners, five of whom needed special access, and others would likely need special access in the near future. The proposed ramp would run across the south side of the building, turn the corner, and run the length of the west side of the building (next to Rhoads' property) ending in a 6-foot-high platform. It would be unenclosed, 5 feet wide, with handrails. The ramp would lead into a coatroom Antioch built in 1984 under a variance. Antioch applied for a variance. The zoning ordinance allowed certain unenclosed porches and steps if necessary for unrestricted access. It also allowed certain obstructions in yards, such as unenclosed, one-story porches on piers at least four feet from a property line. At the hearing, Antioch's contractor testified about the problems with installing an interior elevator, outside lift from the north sidewalk, or chair lift