Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

Z.B. June 25, 2004 -- Page 7 The board's denial of the permit was valid. The board's decision reflected its desire that the development incl~lde du- plexes to serve as a buffer along the boundaries adjoining single-family housing. Although MEE argued the requirement was arbitrary since no other devel- opment project required such a buffer, such a requirement was not automati- cally arbitrary simply because no other project had to have it. Such decisions had to be made on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, in assessing the overall impact of MEE's proposal, the board was free to consider the effect on the character of the specific neighborhood it was in. see al.~o: Bloomer Housing v. City of Bloomer, 653 ~V. W. 2d 309 (2002). see also: Miswald v. Waukesha Count. Board of Adjustment, 550 N. W. 2d 434 (1996). ~ Conditional Use -- Elderly housing development located one-third of a mile from retail stores Code requires, such housing to be Within one-fourth ora mile Citation: Borough of Perkasie v. Moulton Builders Inc., Commonwealth Court of'Pennsylvania, No. I327 C.D. 2003 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA (05/10/04) -- Moulton Builders Inc. filed a conditional use application with the borough of Perkasie seeking approval to bukld an age- restricted housing community. The local zoning ordinance required housing for the elderly to be located within one-fourth of a mile of basic retail services, particularly ~oceries and drugstores. rvfoulton's proposal included plans for retail space, but the property was then located one-third of a mile from a borough shopping center. The borough council denied the conditional use permit application, stating Moulton's proposal failed to satisfy the ordinance because it was more than one-fourth of a mile from basic retail services. Moulton sued, and the court ruled in Moulton's favor. The council appealed, arguing Moulton's proposal failed to fulfill the re- quirements of the zoning ordinance concerning elderly access to retail ser- vices. DE CISION: Affirmed. The council abused its discretion in denying Moulton's application on the grounds ir did not satisfy the zoning ordinance. From its language, it was clear the ordinance intended the residents of an e!der[y housing facility be located within a short distance of essential basic services such as grocer.,/stores and pharmacies. Eve,.~ if the proposal did not include plans for on-site retail services, there 2004 '2umlan ,°~.~biishing Group..'-,ny reproaucdon is prolnib~ted. F~r more inlormation please call (617) 542-0048. 133