Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

Page 2- October 15, 1995 Z.B. Zoning Change -- Neighbor Calls New Ordinance 'Special Legislation' In re Apgar, 661 A.2d 445 (Pennsylvania) 1995 Apgar bought property in a residential zone of Manheim Township, Pa. The land bordered three sides of a lot that had a sewage pumping station. Under the township's zoning ordinance, public utilities were a permitted use in resi- dential zones. In 1992, the City of Lancaster Authority (authority) wanted to build a booster water pumping station on the lot which bordered Apgar's. It asked the township's Zoning Hearing Board for a variance from the ordinance's front yard and rear yard setback requirements. The board denied the request. In January 1993, the township's Board of Commissioners (commissioners) adopted an amended zoning ordinance. It changed public utility installation in residential zones to a conditional use that required the commissioners' approval. The ordinance also reduced the minimum front, rear, and side setbacks for public utility installations in residential districts. About three months later, the authority filed an application for a condi- tional use to build a pumping station on the land bordering Apgar's. The com- missioners approved the request as long as the Authority put up landscape screening and complied with other conditions. Apgar appealed to court, claiming the commissioners' decision was arbitrary and that the authority did not meet the criteria for conditional use approval. The zoning board rejected the challenge, and Apgar appealed that decision to court too. The court heard both cases together and affirmed both decisions. Apgar appealed again, claiming the new ordinance was invalid special legislation because the township enacted it just so the authority could build the pumping station next to his property. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly found the ordinance was valid. Apgar did not prove the ordinance was invalid special legislation. Under Pennsylvania taw, a zoning amendment was not special legislation unless it prevented applicants from exercising vested rights under permits issued before the amendment, or prevented an applicant from going forward with a use that was allowed as of right before the amendment. Apgar did not allege that he was prevented from doing anything. He claimed the ordinance permit- ted a use the old ordinance would have prevented. It did not matter why the township enacted the ordinance its validity had to be judged on its own merit. Clover Hills Farms Inc. v. Lehigh Township ;Board of Supervisors, 289 A.2d 778 (1972). Adult Entertainment Building Department Lets Construction Continue Despite Moratorium Golden v. Steam Heat Inc., 628 N.Y.S. 2d 375 (New York) 1995 In August 1994, Steam Heat Inc. started building an adult entertainment establishment in the borough of Brooklyn, N.Y. The project was directly across the street from the MetroTech Center, a major part of the borough's attempt to