Agenda - Council - 05/26/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2015 I Volume 9 I Issue 4 Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC"). That statute provides that if an ordinance unlawfully prevents a use, the court may order the described use ap- proved as to all elements or it may order it approved as to some elements and refer other elements to the governing body having jurisdiction for further proceedings. The court found that the record before the ZHB was "more than adequate to reject [BIG's request for] judicial relief under Section 1006-A(c) in the form of approval of all elements of BIG's proposed billboards" in that it showed ample evidence that allowing the proposed billboards at the proposed sites could be detrimental to the health and safety of the residents and passersby. However, the court remanded the matter to the trial court to consider whether alternative relief could and should be made available to BIG with respect to BIG's proposed billboard sites. See also: Interstate Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of War- rington Tp., 39 A.3d 1019 (Pa, Comm. Ct. 2012), appeal denied, 621 Pa. 680, 75 A.3d 1283 (2013). See also: Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Exeter Tp., 599 Pa. 568, 962 A.2d 653 (2009). See also: Appeal of Miller and Son Paving, Inc., 161 Pa. Commw. 138, 636 A.2d 274 (1993). Time for Proceedings —Neighboring property owners appeal site plan approval Town argues appeal is untimely, and parties dispute whether appeal period ran from date of public hearing vote or date or written decision issued Citation: Beckford v. Town of Clifton, 2014 ME 156, 2014 WL 7448471 (Me. 2014) MAINE (12/31/14) This case addressed the issue of whether property own- ers timely appealed a planning board decision. More specifically, it addressed the issue of whether a vote by a zoning board of appeals only triggers the statu- tory appeal period once a written decision is issued. The Background/Facts: In late 2010, Pisgah Mountain, LLC applied to the Town of Clifton Planning Board (the "Board") for site plan approval to build and operate a five -turbine commercial wind energy project. The Board eventu- ally voted to approve Pisgah's application. Peter and Julie Beckford (the "Beckfords") then appealed the Board's decision to the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). On January 25, 2012, the ZBA held a hearing on the appeal at which it voted to adopt the Board's findings of fact and to reject each of the Beckfords' specific challenges that had been raised on appeal. At that hearing, the ZBA voted to deny the appeal "in its entirety." The ZBA then decided to meet again on Janu- ary 30, "for the Final Decision." ©2015 Thomson Reuters