Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 2 April 15, 1995 Z.B. Variance -- Gas Station Opposes Potential Competitor's Variance Abe Oil Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board Of Richmond Township, 649 A.2d 182 (Pennsylvania) 1994 Farm and Home Oil Co. applied to, the Zoning Hearing Board of Richmond Township, Pa., f0r.'permission !o build a gas station' and convenience store across the street from Abe Oil Co.'s gas station. The town's zoning laws listed gas stations and convenience stores as per- mitted uses in that zone, but Farm and Home needed variances from traffic control provisions and maximum paved area requirements. Farm and Home admitted the property could be used for many purposes other than its planned use, but argued it should get the variances because its operation would not harm the community. The board granted the variances. After Abe Oil appealed, the court reversed. Farm and Home appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of Abe Oil. Regardless of whether the gas station and store would harm the community, the board should not have granted Farm and Home the varianceS. The board could not grant the variances unless the property was virtually unusable and worthless aS zoned, and denYing the variance would cause Farm and Home unnecessar~ hardship. Farm and Home did not show the proPerty was useless m ii admitted the property had many possible uses as zoned. Polonsky v. Zoning Hearing Board,~ 590 A.2d 1388 (1991). Ventresca v. Exley, 56 A.2d 210 (1948). Special Exception Nude Sunbathers Ordered t° Take Cover New England Naturist Association Inc, v. George, 648 A.2d 370 (Rhode Island) 1994 . . New England NaturistAssociation Inc..bought beachfront property in the town of South Kingstown, R.I., so its members could sunbathe nude. The asso- ciation erected nontransparent windscreens on the three boundaries with adja- cent property. Members Wore clothing when they swam or left the' property. A town building official told the association that it viOlated zoning laws by using the property for nonprofit outdoor recreation without getting a special exception for that use. The association appealed. After the'zoning board of review upheld the official's decision, the association appealed again. The Court reversed, finding the zoning ordinance did not apply because the association did not build'a structure on the land. , .. .... .- The town apPealed, arguing it shoti'ld be' al'l~wed' td regulate. .t!?e' ProPerty'..s use to promote public health, safety, and moralS. It also argued th'at if the asso- ciation had gotten' a special exception beforehand, could use its property as a recreational facility. The association argued it had a legal nonconforming use, so it did not need a special exception -- the same or similar activities existed in the town before it adopted the zoning ordinance.