Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

Z.B, May 10, 2005--Page 7 The commercial parking structures could be allowed in the area. Even if commercial parking structures were inconsistent with the uses in the base zone, local ordinances expressly authorized the city t° amend the district plan to authorize uses that weren't allowed in base zones. The local ordinances demonstrated the city had built some flexibility into its land use controls that worked to accommodate inconsistent uses. Ultimately, the qUestion presented in this case was not whether it was good policy for the city to enact these provisions to allow itself the flexibihty to affect the uses in the base zones in this manner; rather, the issue was what the text of the pertinent provisions provided. Based on the wording of those provisions alloWing the city to provide for inconsistent uses, the court determined the c. ity's decision.was not inconsis- tent with the comprehensive plan. Thus, it did not need tO be'amended. see also: Recovery House VI v, City of Eugene, 946 P. 2d 342' (1997). Abandonment m Second sign post in front of law office not used for two years Zoning board finds nonconforming use abandoned Citation: Finn v. Zoning Hearing Board of Beaver Borough, CommOnwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1582 C.D. 2004 (2005) PENNSYLVANIA (03/08/05) ~ Petrush used the f'n:st floor oflais property for his law office. He leased the second floor to tenants. Since the first tenant occupied the second floor, the building had two signposts in the front yard, one for Petrush and one for the tenant. When the signposts were installed, they were in compliance with the existing zoning ordinance. By the time Petrush bought the building, the signs had become nonconforming, preexisting uses. Until August 2000, each new tenant installed a sign on the second signpost when the tenant moved in, and removed it when the tenant left. FromAugust 2000 until August 2002, there was no sign_ on the second post. In September 2002, Finn, a new tenant, installed a sign on the.second post without obtaining a permit. The local zoning officer notified Finn his sign was in violation of the zoning ordinance. Finn appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board of Beaver Borough. The board found the sign use had been abandoned because no sign had been on the second post for two years. Finn sued, and the court ruled in the board's favor. Finn appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board abused its discretion in concluding Petrush abandoned the law- ful nonconforming use of the second sign. The board concluded the nonconforming use had been abandoned be- cause a sign had not been displayed forin excess of one year. This might serve as evidence of intent to abandon, but such evidence was not by itself sufficient to establish actual abandonment.., (cD 2005 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 127