Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Z.B. October 15, 1996 -- Page 5 amended zoning code, the court dismissed the case. Mill~rton appealed, DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly dismissed Millerton's Case. The lower court prop- erly applied the amended zoning code. The amended' code did not allow a shooting preserve in the zone, and allowed food and lodging at the rod and gun club only with a special permit. The lower court properly relied on the town's amended zoning code. Millerton did not show it relied to its detriment on any of the town's or board's actions, nor did Millerton show the town delayed any actions in bad faith. Without proving either of those things, the lower court had to rely on the law in effect when it made its decision (i.e., the amended code). Under the new law, Millerton could not operate a shooting preserve. How- ever, because Millerton started a rod and gun club relying on the board's decision, it might have gained a right to operate the club without a special permit. If Millerton had such a right, and then got a special permit, it might be able to offer food and lodging. Matter of C & S Golf& Country Club Corp. v. Stevens, 400 N. Y.S. 2d 572. Garci~ v. Holze, 462 N.Y.S. 2d 700. Appeal -- Variance opponent blames lawsuit delays on board Blair v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Pike, 676 A.2d 760 (Pennsylvania) 1996 From the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Pike, Pa., Saylor got a variance to subdivide his property. Saylor's neighbor, Blair, appealed the board's decision to court. More than two years passed without a. ny activity in the case. Under the court's rules, cases that showed no signs of life for at least two years could be te. rminated. The court sent a notice that Blair's appeal would be terminated within three months. The court's rules would allow Blair to avoid dismissal if he showed some compelling reason for the inactivity. Blair asked the court not to 'dismiss his case, saying the board's failure to give the court a certified record of its proceedings caused the delay. He also claimed he could not force'the board to certify the record because the board apparently had lost its file. The court dismissed the appeal, saying Blair had' to move the case forward regardless of anything the board failed to do. Ac- cording to the court, Blair should have filed a separate lawsuit to compel the board to certify its record. Blair appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly dismissed Blair's appeaI based on the lack of activity in the case. Although the board's failure to certify its record held up the court proceedings, Blair was responsible for keeping the case moving. When faced with the board's delays, Blair should have been proactive. Al-