Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Z.B. ~ October 1996 -- Page 3 tended to p[event fires. From 1986 to the time of the case, there had been 35 fires at the Campground. Fire officials recommended a 10-foot setback, but the township imposed a seven-foot setback to avoid causing the owners hardship. The township did not engage in spot zoning when it enacted the ordinance. Trails End was the only campground in the township, so it could not claim it was treated .differently from other campgrounds. Any future campgrounds would face the same requirements. Moreover, other zoning districts in the township were subjeat to similar density and setback requirements. Those requirements may have seemed more favorable, but Trails End's lots were much smaller than those allowed in other districts. Trails End did not shOw the ordinance deprived owners of their property rights. Lot owners could still use their lots for camping, which was Trails End's purpose. Further, the ordinance did not create a hardship unique to the lot in question (the one on which Trails End wanted to"place new structures). The ordinance applied to all the lots in Trails End. Klein v. Council of the City of_Pittsburgh, 643 A.2d 2107 (1994). Rezoning- Council denies restaurant's bid to border hideaway neighborhood City CoUncil of City of Salem v. Wendy's of Western Virginia Inc., 477- $.E. 2d 469 (Virginia) 7_996 Wendy's of Western Virginia Inc. had an option to buy '1.048 acres in the single-family residential zone of the city of Salem, Va. For years, the owner had rented Out the two single-family homes on the property. It was bordered to the west by (but had no access from) a multi-lane, north-south street with a median divider. The homes had access from a two-lane street and a residential street that formed the property's southern and eastern borders, respectively. The property sloped down from the residential street (which was parallel to the multi-lane street) toward the multi-lane street, with its lowest point being 12~- 15 feet below grade. Although the entire 40-acre subdivision that contained the'property was zoned single-family residential, the city's comprehensive plan called for a change to industrial use. Before the company got its option to buy, nobody expressed any interest in buying the property for residential use. However, others had considered it for commercial use. Much commercial and industrial development had begun. The city wid- ened the road on the property's southern border and the owner's tenants had complained about noise from traffic going to and from a nearby industrial park. The other three properties at the intersection of the multi-lane road had on them a bank, a car parts store and a restaurant. Several other stores, office buildings, aOd business uses were nearby. The company asked the city to rezone the property for business use so it could operate a restaurant. 31