Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. April 25, 1997 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />:1 <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />of the types of vehicles involved. <br /> While the ordinance prohibited trucks and other heavy equipment on <br />residential property, this provision did not pertain to Goldberg's vehicles. Heavy <br />trucks and equipment included dump trucks and tractors -- not a pickup, van <br />or Bronco. Goldberg used the same types of vehicles for his business that other <br />residents used to commute to work, so it would be unreasonable to prevent him <br />from doing so just because his work was based out of his home. <br /> However, Goldberg couldn't keep all three vehicles on the property because <br />doing so violated the ordinance's storage provision. Since Goldberg owned <br />three vehicles, and he couldn't drive more than one at a time, it was logical to <br />assume two vehicles were always parked on his property, and for all practical <br />purposes, were being stored there. The ordinance didn't allow storage, so this <br />part of the lower court's decision had to be reversed. Goldberg could keep only <br />one of the vehicles on the property. <br /> In addition, the ordinance wasn't unconstitutional. Goldberg couldn't appeal <br />the citations because the hearing officer's decision on the matter was final, so <br />this claim was dismissed. As for the county's claims for fees, the case had to be <br />returned to the lower court for additional proceedings. <br /> University of Miami v. Zepada, 674 So.2d 766. <br /> <br /> Subdivision ---- Borough says railroad must prove ownership before <br /> subdividing property <br /> Borough of Braddock v. Allegheny County Planning Department, 687 <br /> A.2d 407 (Pennsylvania) 1996 <br /> The Union Railroad Company submitted to the Borough of Braddock, Pa., <br /> a plan to subdivide 11.5 acres that contained abandoned railroad tracks. <br /> When the borough failed to act on the plan, the railroad asked a court to <br />force the borough's approval of the subdivision plan. Since it didn't have a <br />subdivision ordinance, the borough said it couldn't decide the issue; it told the <br />railroad to file the application with the planning department. <br /> When the railroad submitted the plan to the department, the borough objected <br />to the proposed subdivisions. The borough gave the department a copy of the <br />deed and said it didn't contain information on the derivation of title. The borough <br />also said it would be impossible to insure title to the property without this <br />proof. Before the subdivision plan could be approved, the borough argued, the <br />railroad had to prove, and the department had to determine, whether the railroad <br />actually owned the property. <br /> The railroad presented a certificate of title and other legal documents <br />supporting its claim of ownership. <br /> Despite the borough's objections, the department decided the ownership <br />issue didn't need to be examined and approved the railroad's subdivision plan. <br />The borough appealed the decision to court; the railroad attempted to quash <br />the appeal, saying the borough didn't have a substantial or immediate interest <br />in the issue. The court concluded the borough did have a significant interest in <br /> <br /> <br />