Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Page 6 -- September 10, 2003 The residents appealed to the zoning board, and the board agreed with the zoning administrator that the ex/sting building was a legal nonconforming use and the proposed vertical expansion would comply with the applicable max/- mum building height regulations. The board also determined the expansion would not increase the existing nonconformities. The residents appealed to the lower court, which also ageed with the zon- Lng board and zoning administrator. They appealed again, and the appellate court reversed the decision. The landowners appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board's original decision was upheld. Ln the case of nonconforming uses, the court noted that a prior case pro- vided, "A nonconforming use cannot be 1/m/red by a zoning ordinance to the precise rough/rude thereof wb_/ch ex/sted at the date of the ordinance; it may be increased m extent by natural expansion and growth of trade; neither is it es- sential that its exercise ar the time the ordinance was enacted should have util- ized the entire tract upon which the business was being conducted." Here, the proposed construction would not further violate the yard and set- back regulations, nor would the original footprint be expanded. The court considered the arguments of the residents with regard to sunlight and ah: to the/_r properties. However, the landowners provided evidence and argument having a contrary import. Further, the board also considered this issue and found a conforming structure would have the same effect on sunlight because of the slope of the property,. The residents did not take issue with that finding. The addition was therefore permitted. Citation: ~Verrleton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 55 WA? 2002 (2003). see also: In re Appeal of Kline, i48 A.2d 915 (1959). see also: Chacona v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 599 A.2d 255 (1991). 112 Nonconforming Use -- Manufactured home no longer used after flood Village claimed unoccupied home was an abandoned use OHIO (7/21/03) -- h i975, the village enacted a zoning code, which prohib- ited manufactured homes on property upon which Paflnter maintained his manu- factured home. The home had been in the same location since 1973 and was perrmrted to remain as a pre-ex/sting nonconforming use. Painter bought the home in 1984 and rented it from 1985 through 1997. La March 1997, the home sustained flood damage, and Painter made con- siderabte repairs to the wails, sk/rting, and furniture. The village issued an occupancy permit for the home, and Painter continued to pay taxes and per- form upt~eep. However, the home was never occupied after the 1997 permit was ~ssued.