Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Page ~.-- August 15, 1996 . . Z.B. a high-density development on an extremely small lot. Multiple-unit residences could lead to crowded conditions, fire hazards and poor ventilation, among other things.: Finally, Chioffi presented no evidence he was denied all economically benefi- cial use of his land. When he bought the property, the one-year limit already expired;' so Chioffi could not have expected to develop the building as a noncon- forming use. At most, the Ordinance 'prevented Chioffi from getting the most economically beneficial use from his property. This was not a taking. More- over, Chioffi eventually got the variance and the permit he sought. Accessory Use Does 24-hour towing service violate permit's time limitations? Sateach v. Beaver Meadows Zoning Hearing Board of Appeals, 676 A.2d 747 (Pennsylvania) 1996 In 1985, Sateach got a permit to operate an automotive refinishing shop in a residential district in the borough of Beaver Meadows, Pa. The Permit limited the shop's hours-of operation to between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Saturday: Sateach later got two more permits (in 1987 and 1992) to expand his shop and its use for auto body repairs. The later, permits didn't mention hours of operation. In-1-994, a borough zoning officer issued Sateach a cease and desist order after allegedly finding zoning .violations at the shop. Sateach was cited for storing and sell~g tires, operating a 24-hour towing service, ~/nd operating the business beyond the hours of 8 and 5. After holding public hearings, the borough's ZOning Heating Board found Sateach violated the zoning ordinance. It ordered Sateach to cease immediately all violations, including operating the business before 8 and after 5. It also deter- mined, however, that operation of the towing service between 8 and 5 was not a violation. Sateach asked a court to review the board's decision. The court reversed the board's £mding that selling and repairing tires was a zoning violation. It affkmed the finding that the 24-hour towing service was not a use accessory to the shop (and therefore violated the ordinance), and that operating the shop beyond the 8- to-5 limitation was a violation. The court determined operating the towing service during business hours violated the ordinance because Sateach never got a permit to do so. According to the court, the towing service was a change in the building's use, which required a permit. Al'so, the zoning ordinance listed permitted uses that did not require special action by the board; since an accessory use in a residential district was not listed, the court said it required a permit. Sateach appealed. First, he said, the 24-hour towing service clearly was inci- dental to the repair shop. The service was needed to attract customers, and with- out attracting customers, the shop could not continue to operate. Second, he appealed the trial court's determination that he needed a permit to operate the