Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 6 <br />"[b]ecause the ZHB determined that Verizon satisfied the Ordinance's objec- <br />tive special exception requirements, Verizon's proposed Facility is a 'use that <br />is expressly permitted by the [Ordinance], absent a showing [by the Objec- <br />tors] of a detrimental effect on the community.' " Such evidence from the <br />Objectors could not be "mere speculation," said the court; the Objectors "must <br />prove to a high degree of probability that the impact from the proposed use <br />will substantially affect the health, safety and welfare of the community to a <br />greater extent than would be expected normally from that type of use." <br />Here, the court found that the Objectors failed to meet their burden, and of- <br />fered only general, speculative testimony that the monopole's height and the <br />generator's noise "would not be in line with the character of th[e] adjoining <br />neighborhoods." "Therefore, absent substantial evidence of 'a high degree of <br />probability that the impact from the [Facility would] substantially affect the <br />health, safety and welfare of the community to a greater extent than would be <br />expected normally from that type of use[,]' the ZHB was required by the <br />Ordinance to grant the Application," concluded the court. <br />See also: Blancett-Maddock v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, <br />6 A.3d 595 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that "protection of neighborhood aesthetics and prop- <br />erty values are insufficient bases upon which to deny special exceptions." <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that a ZHB's interpretation of its own zoning ordinance <br />is entitled to "great deference and weight." However, the court cautioned that, since a <br />ZHB is not a legislative body, it "must not impose [its] concept of what the zoning <br />ordinance should be, but rather . .. only . . . enforce the zoning ordinance in accor- <br />dance with the applicable law." Here, the court found that the ZHB "departed from its <br />function in determining whether the proposed use fell within the terms of the <br />[Ordinance] and focused instead on implementing goals that it believed fell within the <br />spirit of the [Ordinance]." <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />