Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 8 -- March 25, 1997 z.g. Pennsylvania's differing treatment of signs damaged by vandalism and by natural disaster violated its right to equal protection under the law. It also asserted that enforcement of the Pennsylvania laws on sign rebuilding was a taking because it took away Keystone's right to keep a billboard on the land as a nonconforming use. Finally, Keystone said it had not intended to abandon the old sign. DECISION: Affirmed. The hearing officer's decision on how much of the old sign remained intact did not merit discussion because Keystone abandoned the sign when it built an improved, stronger billboard in violation of the law. Likewise, Keystone's complaint about the differing treatments of vandalized signs and storm-damaged signs was moot because it had completely removed the old, storm-damaged sign and built a new one. Keystone's abandonment of the old sign destroyed any claim it had that enforcement of the sign rebuilding laws was a taking. When it abandoned the sign, Keystone, not state law, took away its right to a nonconforming use on the land. It did not matter whether Keystone intended to abandon the sign. Keystone's intent was irrelevant because when it violated the law by building a new sign, the law considered the old sign abandoned. Takings -- Landowner buys property after enaction of 'steep slope' ordinance Anello v. Zonb~g Board of Dobbs Fer~y, ]997 N. Y. Int. 24 (New York) 1997 In 1989, ~the village of Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., passed a "steep slope" ordinance to "protect environmentally sensitive lands, preserve the Village's natural resources and promote the orderly development of land with excessively steep slope areas." The ordinance created a formula to determine the buildable area for property that sloped. Anello bought sloped property in 1991. According to the ordinance's formula, Anello's property had a buildable area of 4,200 square feet. The village zoning code required a minimum buildable area of 5,000 square feet. Anello wanted to build a one-family house on the property and asked the village's zoning board of appeals for a variance from the ordinance. The board denied the variance. It said building a house on the land would have a harmful effect on the area and would hurt the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The board also said Anello bought the land with full knowledge of the ordinance. Anello appealed the board's decision to the trial court. The trial court reversed the board. The board appealed. The appeals court reversed the trial court. Anello appealed, arguing the village's enforcement of the ordinance was a taking of the property. DECISION: Affirmed. Enforcement of the ordinance was not a taking. Anello bought the land two years after the village passed the ordinance. Since Anello never had the right to build on the land, the board did not take the property when it denied the variance. I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I I I ! I I i