Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1996

Home

Z.B. November 1996 ~ Page 7. nor experience in addressing zoning issues. The moratorium was a good-faith effort by the board to carefully consider the potential problems a hog feedlot would cause before allowing the Duncansons to build one. Medical Services Inc. v. City of Savage, 487 N. W.2d 263 (1992). Variance-- Board says state's design problems hren't enough to get variance Commonwealth v. Zoning Hearing Board of Susquehanna Township,. 677 A.2d 853 (Pennsylvania) 1996 The commonwealth of PennSylvania earmarked more ttian $24 million, to a project its Department of General Services was to complete. The General Ser- vices 'Department would build a new laboratory and office building for the state Department of Environmental Resources. The structures were to be built or/30.9 state-owned acres in Susquehanna Township's conservation district. Permitted uses in that district included muni- cipal facilities, public conservation ~reas and structures, places of worship, single-family homes and cabins, parks, radio and television towers, electric and telephone transmission facilities, and uses similar to those listed. Principal buildings could not be higher than 30 feet or take up more than 20 percent of the-lot size. As designed, the proposed laboratory would be more than 30 feet high. Crhe office building would be only one story high.) Because of the lab's excess height, the General Services Department applied to the town- ship Zoning Hearing Board for a variance. The board denied the variance. It Said it could not grant the request because the General Services Department didn't show the property would have almost no value wi'thom a variance. The GenemI Services Department appealed to court. The court reversed the board's decision, finding the General Services Depart- ment proved it was entitled to a variance. According to the court, the lab would have to be one story to get it under the height restriction. If that happened, the buildings Would cover more lot size ihan allowed and the project woUld cost more than the money allotted to it. Also, some parts of the property previously were a landfill and were unsuitable for building. Based on these factors, the court concluded that- due to the Property's unique characteristics -- the General Services Department would suffer undue hardship w/thout the variance. The township appealed.' DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the township. The lower court improperly overturned the board's decision. The board correctly found that the General Services Department did not prove any enti- tlement to a variance. The evidence showed only that without a variance the property wasn't suited for the building as designed. The evidence proved noth- ing about whether the property was inappropriate for other possible designs or the several other uses the ordinance permitted in that district. A.R.E. Lehigh.Valley Partners v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Macungie Township, 590 A.2d 842 (1991). BP Oil Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board 9f the Borough of Brookhaven, 389 A.2d 1220 (1978).