Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. December 1995 -- Page 5 XVatros and the board both asked the trial court for judgment without a trial. The association asked the court to dismiss Watros' case, saying the court had no jurisdiction over it. The court denied the board's and association's requests. It ordered the board's decision annulled and the permit revoked. The court said the state statute did not protect the proposed use against zoning restrictions because the association leased only part of the property, not the entire lot. The association appealed. The appeals court reversed, finding Watros had no right to appeal the board's decision to court. Watros appealed to the state's highest court. He claimed the case should not have been dismissed, and asked that the trial court's decision be reinstated. DECISION: Trial court's decision reversed on other grounds. The appellate court improperly held that Watros had no right to appeal the board's decision to court. However, the board acted properly when it issued the permit, so the trial court's decision was reversed and the board's decision affirmed. The appeals court's decision regarding Watros' right to appeal was incor- rect. As an adjacent landowner, Watros had the right to appeal the board's decision unless the association proved otherwise. The association did not give the board any evidence challenging Watros' right to appeal. The board acted properly when it issued the permit. State law protected the association's proposed use of the land. The association did not have to own the entire parcel because the law applied to land or structures. It was obvious the Legislature intended to prevent' local interference with land used for educa- tional purposes. If nonprofit educational corporations had to lease or own entire properties, the law would protect only institutions that had enough financial resources. Such an interpretation would conflict with the statute's purpose. Watros v. Greater Lynn Mental Health and Retardation Association Inc., 642 N.E.2d 599 (1994). Campbell ~: City Council of Lynn, 616 N.E. 2d 445 (1993). Signs -- Company Starts Building Billboard Based on Permit for Different Sign Roseberry Life Insurance Compa~y v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of McKeesport, 664 A.2d 688 (Pem~syh.,ania) 1995 Roseberry Life Insurance.Company rented the first floor of a building in the city of McKeesport, Pa. The property was in a general business zone. Roseberry wanted to attach a billboard to the side of the building, which was allowed in that zone under certain conditions. The sign would occupy 265 square feet and read: "Roseberry Life Insurance Specializing in All Forms of Life Insurance." Roseberry hired the Advanced Sign Company to get all the neces- sary permits. An Advanced Sign Company employee spoke with the city zoning officer about application procedures, and then submitted plans and a sketch of the sign