Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

..... Z.B. March 10, 2004- -- Page 3 PENNSYLVANIA (01/16/04) -- A township zoning officer issued' Hartner a notice for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized repair and restoration of vehicles on his property in a residential district. Under state law, a township was required to present its evidence first in any enforcement action. Consequently, at a subsequent hearing before the zon- ing hearing board, the zoning officer read the procedural history and stated the applicable zoning regulations. He also stated the township's position. How- ever, no evidence was admitted to prove Hartner had committed the violation, and no witnesses were called. After the hearing, the board upheld the enforce- ment action. Hartner sued. He argued that in order to rebut the allegations, he had to cai/ the township manager, a police officer, a zoning officer, and an individual who had used Hartner's facilities to repair .his car. In essence, he had to establish a case against himseff in order to disprove it. The court ruled in his favor. The board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's actions were clearly in error. A municipality could not meet its burden in an enforcement proceeding merely by setting forth the relevant procedural history and establishing the content of the relevant zoning provisions without presenting any evidence those provisions were violated by the named individuals or entities. Whether Hartner violated the zoning provisions as charged was the central issue in the case. Because the township did not present evidence of the v, iola- tion, the board essentially shifted the burden to Hartner to testify £~rst. The result was he had to disprove the case against him before the township estab- lished any case at all. see also: Borough of Glenfield v. C. & E. Motors Inc., 347 A.2d 732 (1975). Area Plan -- Plan protects rural character of area Proposed asphalt plant specifically allowed under zoning code Citation: Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County., Court of Appeals of Washington, Div. 2, No. 29188-6-I1 (2004) WASHINGTON (01/13/04) -- Lakeside Industries applied for a special use permit to build an asphalt production and recycling facility in the Nisqually Valley Planning Area. The proposed facility would be located within a g-ravel mine operating in the area under a valid use perrmt. The proposed site was contained within a sub-area plan that called for the county to evaluate special land uses for compatibility with the agricultural/ pastoral character of the valley. However, under the zoning code, asphalt pro- duction facilities were permitted as an accessory use to mining. During public hearings, the county examiner granted the use permit after determining the project was consistent with applicable county plans and codes. 95