Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/21/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2016 ( Volume 10 I Issue 10 Coyle again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Common Pleas Court reversed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a temporary vari- ance is subject to the same criteria under § 910.2 of the MPC as a perma- nent variance. Looking at prior relevant case law, the court found that there was no relaxed standard for a temporary variance, but instead concluded that each application for a variance must meet normal vari- ance standards. Specifically, the court held that "whether a party is seek- ing a temporary or permanent variance, all of the criteria set forth in Sec- tion 910.2(a) of the MPC and Section 1307.08(a) of the City's Zoning Code must be met." Thus, here, since the ZHB "failed to make findings based upon substantial evidence supporting all of the applicable criteria," the court concluded that the ZHB abused its discretion in granting Hess a temporary use variance. See also: 8131 Roosevelt Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, 794 A.2d 963 (Pa. Cornrow. Ct. 2002). See also: 1916 Delaware Tavern, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 657 A.2d 63 (Pa. Connnw. Ct. 1995). Case Note: In its decision, the court also addressed the issue of whether the de minirnis zon- ing doctrine applies in use variance cases. That doctrine "authorizes a variance `where the deviation is relatively minor and strict compliance is not necessary to protect the public interest.' " The court held that the de minirnis zoning doctrine is only applied in cases where minor deviations from dimensional zoning ordi- nances have been the basis for the variance sought; it does not apply in approval of use variance cases. Zoning News from Around the Nation NATIONWIDE A proposed bill that "would green light the [Federal Aviation Admin- istration's] programs through fiscal 2017, creates a federal preemption for state or local laws related to the design, manufacture, testing, licens- ing, registration, certification, operation or maintenance of [unmanned aircraft systems] UAS." The bill specifies "that local governments could not enact or enforce laws related to airspace, altitude, flight paths, equip- ment or technology requirements and pilot requirements, according to the bill text." Some lawmakers are seeking to amend the bill, to address the drone pre-emption language. For example, a proposed amendment ©2016 Thomson Reuters 11