Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Z.B. September 15, 1996 -- Page 3 a growth area. Nothing suggested the inn's present structure couldn't ac- commodate more rooms, and the plan allowed modified uses of existing struc- tures to foster growth. LaBonta v. City of Waterville, 528 A.2d 1262 (1987). Citizens Association of Georgetown Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission, 402 A.2d 36 (1979). Exclusionary Zoning m Township says it allows bus depots as 'truck terminals' Ficco v. Board of Supervisors of Hempfield Township, 677 A.2d 897 (Pennsylvania) 7-996 The Ficcos owned a 1.8-acre tract of land in Hempfield Township, Pa. The land was in a highway business zone. The Ficcos leased their prope.rty to a bus company to use as a depot for about 30 school buses. The township notified the Ficcos that bus depots were not allowed in high- way business zones. The Ficcos applied to have the zoning ordinance amended to allow bus depots in highway business zones. They claimed the ordinance unconstitutionally excluded bus depots because it didn't allow them anywhere in the towtmhip. The township said bus depots were allowed -- they could be recognized and approved as a special exception in a heavy industrial district. After a public hearing, the township Board of Supervisors voted to deny the amendment. The Ficcos asked a court to review the decision. They argued that because the words "bus depot" did not appear anywhere in the ordinance, bus depots were excluded from the township. The township explained that it considered bus depots to be the same as "truck terminals," which were allowed as special exceptions in industrial districts. Therefore, bus depots were not excluded. The court dismissed the Ficcos' caSe. The Ficcos appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, case dismissed. The lower court properly dismissed the Ficcos' lawsuit. The Fi¢cos had no case bus depots were allowed in the township. They could not argue the ordinance excluded bus depots just because the exact words were not listed. As the lower court said, "to conclude that this excludes such a use entirely is to read the ordinance in a hypertechnical manner." The toWnship interpreted "bus depots" as analogous to "truck terminals," which the ordinance allowed in certain zones. The court had to adopt this interpretation because it would uphold the ordinance's validity. HEJ Partnership v. Clinton County Commissioners, 657A.2d 7_26 (7-995). Editor's note: The township pointed out that even if the court found the ordinance unconstitutionally excluded bus depots, the Ficcos could not sim- ply rewrite the ordinance to suit their needs. If an amendment had been or- dered, the township would have put it where it saw fit. This issue was never considered because the ordinance was found to be constitutional.