Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

...) April 15, 1995 m Page 3 DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the town. The a~ssociation had to get a special exception to use the' property as a sunbathing beach. The tbwn could regulate the association's use of fragile beachfront prop- erty to a~dress land uSe type and density, as well as 'environmental and eco- nomic in'pact. The trial court was wrong to substitute its jUdgment for that of the boar& If the association wanted to continue using the property for nude sunbathifig, It had to seek a special exception under the zoning code.. '. Special ~ xception m Appeals Board's Decision to Let Quarry Expan., I~ui Neighbor . · Shantah v. Hellam Township Zoning Hearing Board, 648 A.2d 1299 (Pennsylvania) 1994 :~ : Cour~tY Line Quarry Inc. ran a stone quarry in Hellam Township, Pa., for more tha~a 100 years. In 1988, it bought 58 acres of land next to the quarry. The area was !zoned "agri~rural," but allowed quarrying by.special exception. The {luarry applied for a special exception to mine p.art of the property. Althoug[ the company did not expect to start mining for 20 years, it planned to begin building immediately the structures needed to prepare for mining. At the hearing, Shamah and other neighbors opposed County Line's re- quest, ar~uing the expanded quarry would harm the cOmmunity. Shamah's ex- pert witn '~ss said the expanded mining would damage Shamah's water supply [ and house foundation, and lower his property's value. The quarry's experts testified ~hat the expansion would not increase the risk of flooding, erosion, or collapse bf neighboring land. They also said it would not increase noise levels or other~ltise harm the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. The towSship's Zoning Hearing Board granted the special exception, finding that the ~luarry would not harm the community's general health, safety, and welfare.: Shan~ah appealed, and the court affirmed. Sha~ah appealed again. He argued that County Line did not intend to mine the tract tmtil 20 years later, so its application for a special exception was pre- mature. 2~his gave the quarry a guaranteed right to mine even if the town changed its zonin~ laws. Shamah also argued that the board should not have granted the exception, even if the application was not premature, because the quarry would harm theigeneral public. .. DECISION: Affirmed. ; Coug~y Line's application for a special exception was not premature, and the boar~ was correct to grant it. .. County Line properly applied for the special exception even though it did not plan lo mine the property for 20 years. Pennsylvania law defined quarrying to includ readying the property for mining, and County Line planned to begin preparati ,n for mining immediately. County Line did not need to wait until it spent co~ siderable amounts of money and time preparing the land for mining