Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

Z.B. Jul? 25, 2004 -- Page 3 developed land. He filed an application with the zoning board of adjustment for six area variances to develop a 100-room hotel. These variances included shorter setbacks and the creation of off~street parking. The board granted the variances. Neighboring property owners sued. They also presented plans for a room hotel they claimed could be built on the property without variances. However, the court ruled in Ramsey's favor. The neighbors appealed, arguing the required variances for a 100-room hotel were unreasonable and the board failed to explore alternative options. DECISION: Reversed. The variances were granted incorrectly. In this case, it was unclear whether there were reasonably feasible alterna- tive methods to implement the proposed use, without undue financial burden ro the landowner, that would diminish the need for the variances. Examples of potential alternatives might have included under~ound park- ing or an additional hotel level. However, the only alternative presented at the hearing was the proposed 60-room hotel plan. [n many cases, there was more than one method available to implement a landowner's proposed use. Importantly, in deciding whether to grant an area variance, courts and zoning boards had to examine the financial burden on the landowner, including the relative expense of all available alternatives. Here, the board failed to do so. see also: Bc'tcon v. Town of Enfield, 840 A.2d 788 (2004). see al,vo: Simplex Technologies v. Town of Newington, 766 A.2d 713 (2001). Variance -- Board grants variance based on borough's failure to enforce order Finds borough never checked whether previous owner had removed third- family kitchen Citation: Boro,~,gh of Dormon~ ~. The Zomng Hearing Board of the Borough of Dormon~, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvama, No. 2132 C.D. 2005 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA (05/25/04) -- In 1983, the zoning hearing board denied a previous owner's request to certify Sparvero's building as a three-unit dwell- ing instead of a two-Eamily one. It also ordered the previous owner to remove the kitchen from a section of the building that at some time in-the past had · been converted to a third dwelling unit. in January 1984~ the board issued a two-family occupancy permit for the building. In February 1984, Sparvero bought the building, which he had seen advertised as a three-family dwelling. Sparvero used the property, as a three- 15trolly 5[welling until he requested a parking permit in 2002. At the time, the !>,>rou2h became aware ,>f the situation and issued a cease and desist notice. ,~.~; 2C04 ,gUlrUan .g~.~oJisnmg ,~rouo. ,Any ,'eproduclion is proi]~bited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 73