Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 4- April 10, 1997 z.g. expectation of an undeveloped meadow justified the board's opinion that amending the permit would be inappropriate. see also: Borough of Demarest v. Heck, 201 A.2d 75 (1964). I I ! Commercial Use -- Can company run business in river that runs along residential district? C&C Marine Maintenance Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board Georgetown Borough, 686 A.2d 896 (Pennsylvania) 1997 In Georgetown Borough, Pa., C&C Marine Maintenance Corp. owned a tract of land along the Ohio River and got permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build "cells" in the river. The cells were built 30 to 50 feet into the river and were used to moor other barges for repair work, beyond the low- water mark. C&C Marine never sought any permits from Georgetown Borough, nor did the borough issue any. The town's zoning ordinance allowed for two types of districts -- residential and commercial. On the zoning map, the borough did not divide the districts with line borders, but covered the residential areas with dots and the commercial districts with diagonal lines. On the map, all streets and rivers were left white or blank. The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code said zoning ordinances could regulate and restrict uses on bodies of water. In 1994, the Zoning Hearing Board acted on a number of concerns about the barge operation. Residents complained the barges constantly collided, cre- ating loud noises day and night. Vibrations from the collisions apparently caused damage and broken windows. Saying C&C Marine did not have a permit to operate a commercial business in a residential area, the board issued a cease and desist order for C&C Marine to stop its mooring activities. The board said the barges were located in water adjacent to a residential district. It determined that this part of the Ohio River took the zoning classification of the neighboring land, and said C&C Marine could not operate its business in a residential district. C&C Marine sued the borough. Based on its review of the ordinance and the official zoning map, the court said the map did not clearly extend zoning districts into the Ohio River. Therefore, the ordinance did not restrict use of the portion of the river where the cells were located. The court reversed the board's cease-and-desist order. The borough appealed, saying the board was correct to find the ceils were operated in a residential district, which the ordinance prohibited. DECISION: Affirmed. According to the Pennsylvania code, the borough did have the right to regulate the use of the river, but only if it c/rose to exercise that power. Because the borough did not clearly delineate boundaries on the map, it did not establish a zoning classification for the river. The burden of determining boundaries fell on the borough, not C&C Marine. Since no clear zoning boundaries extended into the Ohio River, the area where the cells were located could not be considered I I ! I I I I I I I I' ! ! I I I