Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 13 noted that an applicant seeking a variance to expand a nonconforming use must still establish unnecessary hardship resulting from unique phys- ical conditions of the property and satisfy all the other criteria in § 910.2(a) of the MPC and § 1325.06(c) of the Ordinance. The court also noted that Elias had a "vested constitutional right to a natural expansion of a nonconforming use" —as balanced against the impacts of the proposed expansion on the surrounding area and public interest. The court found the evidence in the record supported the Board's find- ing that: asserted hardship resulted from the unique physical conditions of the property; the requested expansion of the nonconforming use was necessary for a reasonable use of the property; the new proposed structures were necessary to improve and modernize the nonconforming use; and the proposed expansion would not adversely impact the neighborhood. The court concluded that the fact that the proposed expan- sion was sizable did not render the expansion unreasonable per se. Rather, the court found the evidence established that the requested vari- ances represented a reasonable adjustment of the zoning standards neces- sary to allow a reasonable use of the property without affecting the public health, safety and welfare. See also: Hertzberg v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249, 721 A.2d 43 (1998). See also: Jenkintown Towing Service v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Upper Moreland Tp., 67 Pa. Commw. 183, 446 A.2d 716 (1982). See also: Silver v. Zoning Bd. ofAdjustment, 435 Pa. 99, 255 A.2d 506 (1969). See also: In re Gilfillan's Permit, 291 Pa. 358, 140 A. 136 (1927). Nonconforming Use —City says property use is nonconforming and illegal Property owner argues city's tax assessment of property based on nonconforming use precludes enforcement of zoning laws Citation: Cigarrilha v. City of Providence, 64 A.3d 1208 (R.I. 2013) RHODE ISLAND (05/15/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a use was grandfathered as a preexisting legal nonconforming. It also addressed whether a city's assessment of property taxes upon prop- erty based on a nonconforming use precluded enforcement of the zoning laws by operation of equitable estoppel or by operation of laches. ©2013 Thomson Reuters 5