Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 2 -- March 25, 1997 z.g, Nonconforming use -- Was racetrack abandoned? Latrobe Speedway v. Zoning Hearing Board, 686 A.2d 888 (Pennsylvania) 1997 In 1977 Latrobe Speedway, Inc. bought property in Unity Township, Pa., where it operated a racetrack before leasing it for the same purpose. From 1982 to 1994, the racetrack was not used, though the facility still remained. No improvements or modifications were made to the property, and Latrobe made no attempt to dismantle the structures. During that time, Latrobe continued to pay taxes on the property's assessment as a racetrack, and it negotiated with 23 different parties about the possible sale or lease of the property. In 1991, the town designated agricultural land that included the racetrack. Three years later, Latrobe signed a lease agreement with Aretta, which planned to operate the racetrack. The Zoning Hearing Board of Unity Township denied its request for an occupancy permit, saying the racetrack did not conform to the 199t ordinance. Determining that Latrobe had abandoned its use of the land as a racetrack, the board said the land could not remain nonconforming. Latrobe appealed the board's decision. The court affirmed. It said that be- muse the racetrack was not in operation when the zoning ordinance was enacted, Latrobe could not claim the existence of a nonconforming use. Latrobe appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. Nonuse of the property alone did not constitute abandonment. To show Latrobe was not entitled to a nonconforming-use designation, the board had to establish that Latrobe intentionally abandoned the property. The evidence overwhelmingly contradicted the board's conclusions: Though the facilities were in disrepair, Latrobe never attempted to alter or dismantle the structures; it still paid the racetrack's property assessment taxes; and it negotiated with several parties to continue the property's use as a racetrack. If Latrobe couldn't find someone to operate the.racetrack, that was an.indication of financial circumstances beyond Latrobe's control, not a sign that it willingly abandoned the property. Variance -- Can software company double its number of employees? Red House Fat'tn Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of East Greenbush, 650 N.Y.S. 2d 891 (New York) 1996 Communications Software Consultants Inc. (Commsoft) wanted to locate its software business in a residential buffer zone in East Greenbush, N.Y. The land had a large farmhouse, a tenant house and a barn. In 1993, Commsoft asked the town for a variance to operate its business on the land. The town granted the variance, with four conditions: Commsoft could operate its business only in the farmhouse and the "immediate surrounding area"; it had to remove the barn; it could have only 20 employees on site unless the town gave approval for more; and the town had to review the site plan before it granted the variance. Commsoft's business grew significantly, and it wanted to increase its I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I