Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Page 4 -- January 15, 1997 Z.B. on the east steps. The board asked about whether the contractor had considered alternatives to the ramp. Rhoads opposed the variance, arguing he would lose privacy and be exposed to a flow of traffic in and out of the church. He offered a petition with 10 ~ignatures opposing the ramp. Antioch countered with a petition that had about 28 signatures of area residents who did not oppose it. Antioch also offered photographs of the neighborhood, showing other properties that were nonconforming. The board granted the variance. It found alternatives such as an elevator or stair gllde were impractical due to the church building's physical characteristics and its tight location. The board also concluded the ordinance allowed expansion of some nonconforming structures so as not to deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property. The board concluded the ramp was similar to the unenclosed structures allowed under the ordinance. After a court affirmed the board's decision, Rhoads appealed. Rhoads attacked the decision to grant the variance on several grounds. First, he said Antioch had not shown that unique circumstances affected its property and caused it to suffer a hardship. He also said Antioch did not show the variance was necessary for reasonable use of the property. Any hardsl~ip on Antioch was self-inflicted, he said, because the coatroom Antioch built in 1984 took up space where a porch lift could have been built. He claimed the proposed variance was not the minimum necessary. Finally, Rhoads said Antioch did not show that the variance would not alter the neighborhood character, impair use of the adjacent properties, or be detrimental to the public welfare. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of Antioch. The church was entitled to the variance. Unique circumstances affected Antioch's property. The church was close to the edges of a narrow lot. Nonconformities prevented it from providing access for the disabled. Only Antioch's lot had a relatively large church building built decades before the ordinance was adopted. Church use was a reasonable use of the property, and Antioch's evidence showed that some form of handicapped access, which required a variance, was necessary for the reasonable use of the property. The hardship was not self-inflicted, and the board had evidence the variance was the minimum necessary. Antioch considered alternatives to the ramp, and the board questioned the contractor about them. The board also properly found that granting the variance would not alter neighborhood character, impair the use of adjacent properties, or be detrimental to the public. A number of residents did not oppose the ramp, and other structures in the area had similar nonconformities. see also: Larse~ v. Zo~i~g Board of Adjustme~t of the City of ?ittsburgh, 672 A.2d 286 (]996). see also: Board of Sul~ervisors of Upper Southampton Tow~shi. p v. Zoni~g Heari~g Board of Uptver Southampto~ Townshi$>, 555 A.2d 256 (2989).