Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2016

Home

is September 10, 2016 Volume 10 1 Issue 17 Zoning Bulletin The Board denied the Club's request. The Board recognized that the Club had a pre-existing nonconforming use, but noted that the Club had not appealed from the use certificate issued by the zoning officer. Rather, the Board observed that the application submitted by the Club requested an expansion of a nonconforming use, which required that the Club, as applicant, satisfy the requirements for a special exception. The Board concluded that the Club failed to satisfy the special excep- tion standards of the Ordinance, and denied the Club's application for an expansion of its nonconforming use. The Club appealed. It argued that it was not proposing a change in use or to physically expand the area used for racing but only to conduct the same racing that had occurred for years. The Township countered that the issue before the Board was not whether there was a prior nonconforming use for Sunday racing but whether the Club was able to meet Ordinance requirements to expand racing to include Sundays. The trial court found that the Club had not challenged the limitation of its nonconforming use to Saturdays only since it had not appealed from the certificate of nonconformance but instead had applied for a nonconforming use change. The trial court concluded that the Board had properly denied the Club its request for expansion of the noncon- forming use. The court found that the Board had"accepted the Certifi- cate of Nonconformance as establishing the prior use (racing on Saturdays only) and then denied the request to extend racing to Sundays"based on a failure to satisfy Ordinance standards. The Club again appealed. It argued that it had never abandoned the nonconforming use of go-cart racing on Sunday. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas reversed and matter remanded. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Board had erred in determining that the Club was not permitted to hold any go- s.More specifically,cart races on Sunday p y,the court found that the Board had erred in concluding that the Club was not entitled to continue its nonconforming use based on the fact that the use was not reflected in the certificate of nonconformance. The court explained that, under the doctrine of natural expansion, the Club had the constitutionally protected right to expand the nonconforming go-cart use"as required to maintain economic viability or to take advantage of increase in trade."Still,acknowledged the court, that right to expand is"not unlimited"but may be reasonably restricted. However,said the court,such restrictions and regulation"cannot be ac- complished by way of a certificate of nonconformance,which. . . can neither expand nor limit a lawful nonconforming use." "Indeed . . the grant or denial of a nonconforming use certificate has no bearing on an individual's property rights,"said the court. Consequently,the court 6 ©2016 Thomson Reuters i i i I