Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

August 1996 -- Page 5 The department eventually issued Frank a building permit that authorized, with strict guidelines, construction of the house. Because her lot was too small, Frank had to apply to the town's Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance. When it got Frank's application, the board amended it to include an appli- cation for a second variance, this one from frontage requirements. In so doing, the board made Frank ineligible for the "single and separate" exception to the zoning ordinance. The exception gave property owners an unconditional right to one area variance. Community and zoning-board members believed the proposed construc- tion would affect flooding, property values and the community's aesthetics. Board members claimed the construction would cause environmental prob- lems, despite the fact Frank had a permit from the environmental department. According to the board, the conditions the department imposed were "extremely unrealistic." The board also found the proposed house didn't qualify for a front- age exception because the road it was on wasn't sufficiently curved. The board denied both variances. It found the detriment the proposed house would bring to the community outweighed its benefit to Frank. Frank asked a court to review the board's decision, but the court dismissed her petition. Frank appealed. DECISION: Reversed; application granted. The board's denial of Frank's area variance was arbitrary, so the court annulled it. It also said the board's frontage determination was improper. The arguments made by the community and the board about flooding, prop- erty values and community aesthetics were speculative. There was no evidence building the house would cause environmental problems. On the contrary, the environmental department issued Frank a building permit after fully address- ing all the board's concerns. In any case, the reasons the board gave for denying Frank,s application were environmental, not zoning, concerns. The board offered no evidence to sup- port its determination that Frank's house would be a detriment to the community. Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 633 N.Y.S. 2d 259. Excavation -- Mining company tries to dispute ordinance that's already been changed Paradise Materials b~c. v. Paradise ToWnship, 676 A.2d 1314 (Pennsylva~ffa) 1996 In 1994, Paradise Township, Pa., amended the parts of its zoning ordinance that related to non-coal surface mining. However, about two weeks later, it realized some of the amendments might be invalid. As outlined in the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code, the township took steps to correct the problems, that is, enact a municipal curative amendment. Paradise Materials Inc. operated a quarry on 180 acres in the township. It wanted to expand its operations to include certain types of non-coal surface mining. When it sought the township's approval'to expand (which apparently