My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:39 AM
Creation date
3/1/2017 2:11:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/02/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 2 <br />satisfied the ordinance's requirement for: "a site plan that reflects the location <br />of all structures, existing and proposed; all open space areas; means of traffic <br />access and all streets; contours of the site for each five feet of change of eleva- <br />tion; and the location of any residential structure within 200 feet of any prop- <br />erty boundary line of the subject site." <br />Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of EDF's special exception <br />application. <br />Case Note: <br />EDF had also argued that the Township's zoning officer's assurance that EDF's ap- <br />plication was completed properly was evidence that the application complied with the <br />ordinance, and therefore the application could not be denied by the ZHB for failure to <br />comply with the ordinance (i.e., failure to submit a site plan). The appellate court <br />observed that the ordinance "confers authority on the ZHB, not the zoning officer; to <br />hear and decide requests for special exceptions." Further, the court noted that the zon- <br />ing officer's statement on which EDF based this argument was made during the hear- <br />ing, and EDF had failed to assert that it detrimentally relied on the zoning officer's ac- <br />ceptance of the application. <br />Use —Applicant proposes use of a <br />funeral home with accessory <br />crematory use <br />Despite applicant's claims, zoning board finds crematory <br />(and not funeral home) is primary use, and thus <br />prohibited in the zoning district <br />Citation: River's Edge Funeral Chapel and Crematory, Inc. v. Zoning Hear- <br />ing Board of Tullytown Borough, 2016 WL 6777976 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016) <br />PENNSYVLANIA (11/16/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />property's principal use, as proposed by the applicant, would in actuality be a <br />funeral home (permitted in the zoning district) or a crematory (prohibited as a <br />principal use in the zoning district). <br />The Background/Facts: River's Edge Funeral Chapel and Crematory, Inc. <br />("River's Edge") leased property located in a Light Industrial ("LI") Zoning <br />District in Tullytown Borough (the "Borough'). The property contained an <br />improved commercial building at which River's Edge sought to operate a fu- <br />neral home and crematory. The LI Zoning District permitted a funeral home as <br />a principal use in the district, but prohibited a crematory as a principal use; a <br />crematory was permitted in the LI Zoning District as an accessory use. <br />In September 2013, seeking to operate a proposed "funeral home and <br />crematory" at the property, River's Edge filed an application for a Use and Oc- <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.