Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I goB. March 25, 1997 -- Page 3 workforce. In 1995, it asked the town for permission to renovate the tenant house and increase the number of employees to 40. After a public hearing, the town ruled that the "immediate surrounding area" included the tenant house, so the 20-employee limit applied to the farmhouse and the tenant house combined. However, the town gave Commsofi a use variance that allowed it to refurbish the tenant house and increase its workforce to 40 employees. Opponents of the variance appealed. They argued the town's granting of a use variance was arbitrary and capricious because Commsoft never showed it would suffer hardship without it. DECISION: Affirmed. The town's decision was not arbitrary and capricious. An expansion caused by an increase in the volume of business did not require a use variance. So even though Commsoft's application was labeled as "request for a variance," it actually was just a request for a modification of the 1993 variance. And since the 1995 request was not for a variance, Commsofi did not have to show hardship. Matter of Tartan Oil Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 623 N. Y.S. 2d 902. Matter of De Blois v. Wallace, 452 N.Y.S. 2d 734. Special Exception -- City denies special exception to operate playground and daycare Rapaport v. Zoning Hearing Board of Allentown, 687 A.2d 29 (Pennsylvania) 1996 Mosser bought land in Allentown, Pa., to use as a playground for her childcare business. The land was located in a medium-density residential zone. Mosser applied for a zoning permit but was denied. Mosser appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board. She argued the city zoning ordinance allowed her to build a playground on the land. The ordinance permitted "public parks or playgrounds or governmental uses" in medium-den- sity residential zones. Mosser also argued her playground qualified as a daycare center. The ordinance permitted daycare centers in medium-density residential zones as a special exception. However, before the board allowed a daycare center as a special exception, it first had to "determine whether such structure or use will not be detrimental to surrounding property." Furthermore, "the design of any structures erected in connection with such use [had to] be in keeping with the general character of the area." The board granted the zoning permit with several conditions. It said Mosser's playground was similar in nature to a public playground, which the ordinance permitted. However, the board denied the special exception because it found Mosser's playground was not a daycare center. The ordinance defined "day care center" as "any premises operated for profit in which child day care is provided simultaneously for seven (7) or more children who are not relatives of the operator."