Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

January 10, 2006 -- Page 5 house on the property, the zoning regulations were not prohibiting a reason- able use of the property and no unusual hardship existed. Jersey sued. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city. The board was correct in denying the variance. Review of the board's decision was; limited to the question of whether the board acted arbitrarily, illegally, or unreasonably. Based on the available evi- dence, it was clear that it did not. Disappointment in the use of property did not create an unusual hard- ship. Importantly, Jersey was not completely denied the use or value of his property. In this instance, the board acted within its statutory discretion because Jersey was able to use his land in a reasonable manner under the zoning regu- lations, namely as his primary residence. see also: Kaeser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 589 A.2d 1229 (1991). see also: Wnuk v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 626 A.2d 698 (1993). Variance-- Company gambles on property's rezoning Admits it knew of residential zoning when it bought property Citation: Laurel Point Associates v. Susquehanna Township Zoning Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 77 C.D. 2005 (2005) PENNSYLVANIA (11/28/05) -- Laurel Point Associates purchased an unim- proved tract of land that was zoned "low density residential." Laurel Point wanted to build commercial office buildings on the property. Consequently, Laurel Point flied a variance request with the Susquehanna Town- ship Zoning Hearing Board. It claimed that the property's zoning did not allow the property to be used in a reasonable manner. During hearings on the matter, Laurel Point admitted that it paid a commer- c/al-development price for the property despite knowing that the property was zoned for residential use. However, it claimed that increased traffic on an adja- cent roadway made the property impractical to develop residentially. The board denied the variance request. Laurel Point sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Laurel Point appealed, arguing that the property could not be developed profitably as zoned. DECISION: A firmed. Laurel Point was not entitled to a variance. Most of Laurel Point's evidence consisted of conctusory opinions as to the property's unsnitabihty for residential use. As a whole, this evidence only estab- lished that Laurel Point could not make the profit that tt desired on the property. Importandy, Laurel Point's self-proclaimed inability to make a profit appeared to @ 2006 Cuintan Puofis~mg GrouD. Any reproauclioa is pro,lib[ted. For more [nlormation please call {617} 5424)048. 127