Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

2'' z.g. August 25, 2005:-- Page 5 Conditional Use -- Township denies permit based on traffic conditions Development would add to existing traffic problem Citation: h~ re Appeal of The Cutler Group Inc., Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1659 C.D. 2004 (2005) PENNSYLVANIA (07/08/05) -- The Cutler Group Inc. owned a large tract of land in East Vincent Township. A large portion of the tract was zoned Agricultural Preservation. Develop- ment was allowed by conditional use application. Cutler submitted a conditional use application.to the Board of Supervisors of East Vincent Township, proposing to build 72 single-familydetached dwellings. The board ultimately denied the conditional use a~plication. It found the development would exacerbate an already dangerous traffic condition. Cutler appealed, arguing its application could not be denied based on traf- fic concerns. DECISION: Reversed. The board erred in denying Curler's conditional use apphcation because of its effect on already existing traffic at the bridge. Under the ordinance, the location of the proposed use had to be "suitable with respect to probable effects upon highway traffic." However, the location could not be deemed unsuitable simply because the proposed use would contribute to an already dangerous traffic condition that was primarily generated by other source~. Here, the board found that County Bridge No. 191, a one-lane bridge, was located less than one-half mile south of the proposed development; the ap- proach to the bridge from the proposed development included a 90-de~ee turn; the bridge and its approaches constituted an existing dangerous traffic condition; the proposed development would increase traffic over the bridge by 80 percent, adding 252 trips to the 315 trips that vehicles made daily over the bridge; and this traffic increase would exacerbate the already dangerous traffic condition. [n this case, the board could not deny Curler's c6nditional use application simply because the proposed use would contribute to the already dangerous traffic condition because the dange[ous condition was caused primarily by the 90-degree approach to the one-lane bridge, not any new development. xee also: Bailey v. Upper Southampton Township, 690 A.2d 1324 (1997). Application -- Zoning board bases new decision largely on past decision Rules new application identical to the last Ciration: Matherson v. Scheyer, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., D~d Dept., No. 2004-03972 (2005) NEW YORK (07/05/05) -- Matherson purchased two adjoining lots, Lots 42 and 64, in the town of Islip. The lots were a "back-to-back" split configuration, 2005 Ouinian PuOlisning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 199