Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2012 I Volume 6 Issue 21 property (the "Property") in the City of St. Mary's (the "City") in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. Prior to its acquisition by the Trust, the Property had undergone a series of different uses: As of 1983, the Property was used as a single-family res- idence and professional office. From 1983 to 1996, the Property was used as a single-family residence and the office of a public accounting firm. (The latter use was not permitted under the then -applicable zoning ordinance and operated without a zoning peiinit.) From 1996 to April 2010, the Property was used as four apartments and office space. (Both the former and latter uses were not permitted under the applicable zoning ordinance and operated without a zoning permit.) Also prior to acquisition by the Trust, zoning ordinances applicable to the Property had been revised: In 1977, the Zoning Ordinance peituitted single-family residences and medical offices. In 2006, the current Zoning Ordinance (the "2006 Ordinance") was enacted. The Ordinance limited the Residential Urban District, where the Property was located, to single- family detached houses and duplexes. The 2006 Ordinance prohibited professional offices, except for those properties abutting arterial streets. (The Property was not on an arterial street.) After the Trust purchased the Property, it wanted to continue to use the Property as an office and four apartments. The Trust sought to have the Property rezoned from Residential Urban to Central Business in order "to use [the Property] as an economic return as best as [the Trust] c[ould] for the real estate market to return." The Trust submitted a curative amend- ment to the City Council. The City Council did not act upon the amendment. Accordingly, under state law, it was deemed denied. The Trust appealed to the trial court. The Trust contended that its request for a curative amendment should be granted because the 2006 Ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable in that it excluded the uses currently and historically conducted on the Property. The Trust also argued that the 2006 Ordinance was confiscatory because it prohibited economically feasible uses for the Property. The trial court denied the Trust's appeal. It found that a curative amend- ment was not warranted. The court found that the zoning of the Property was "a natural extension of the Residential -Urban District to the west and north" of the Property. The trial court also rejected the Trust's argument that the Property could not be used in an economically feasible manner in the Residential Urban District. It found the Trust's evidence on this point unpersuasive because the Trust had not explored alternative uses, such as turning the Property into a rental duplex. The Trust again appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the trial court. It similarly found that a curative amendment was not warranted, and that the 2006 Ordinance was not confiscatory. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 7