Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

Page 4 -- July 25, 2004 Spar'vero applied for a var/anco. The board granted his request, basing its decision on the fact the borough did nothing to 'verify whether the previous owner had complied with the 1983 order. The borough sued, and the court ruled in its favor. Sparvero appealed, arguing the borough failed to make him aware of the occupancy restrictions before he purchased the building. DECISION: Affirmed. Sparvero was not entitled to a variance. The board provided no authority to support the proposition that a munici- pality had a duty to ensure that a parry against whom a valid order had been issued complied with the order. There were no facts indicating the borough pursued a course, following the issuance of the board's 1983 decision, indicating gparvero's use of the building was not objectionable. The borough, having granted only a two-family occupancy permit before the sale in 1984 to Sparvero not only had reason to believe the owners were complying with the order and the occupancy permit, but also provided Sparvero with no reason to believe his use was not objectionable. see also: Wolzer v. Board of Stcervisors of Tredyffrin Township, 828 A.2d 1160 (2003). see also: Sprin~o~eld Township v. Klm, 792 A.2d 717 (2002). Vested Rights -- Truck laundry claims it has vested rights in use Continues operating laundry as public nuisance Citation:' Ci~ of Carson v. Odyssey Transportation Inc., Cotirr of A£peal of Cali, tb~7~ia, 2nd ,:[pp. Dist., Div. 5, zVo. BJ 72400 (2004) C,'%LIFOP, xNIA (05/25/04) -- Odyssey Transportation Inc. operated a truck [aundIl,/in an industrial section of Carson, California. In 1977, the zoning ordinance was. amended to require a conditional use permit for businesses that cleaned automobiles. The ordinance included a 20- year grace period to bring properties into compliance. Odyssey applied for a conditional use permit in 1994. After it was denied a permit, Odyssey entered into two conditional extensions with the city by agreeing to close the truck laundry on March 13, 1999. Odyssey continued to operate the laundry. During that time, it also failed to comply with certain agreement provisions, such as allowing an unpermitted trailer on the prope,~y and failing to pave the parcel. The city sued, and the court ruled in. favor of the city. Odvsse,/appealed. arguing the city ,;vas violating irs constitutional rights by ta~ng away its vested :ights in operating a truck laundry. DECISI,O~': Allirmed. 74 '~ 2©0~. '~utntart P,mlisning 'group. 5ny 'e!)roduction is 9ronibiteo. For more ;n[ormaIlon olease call !617!