Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

Z.B. May 10, 1997 - Page 3 -, The township appealed. DECISION: Reversed; temporary order granted. The court was wrong to dismiss the township's claims. The planning code gave the zoning board, not a court, jurisdiction to decide property owners' appeals to notices. It did not matter that the first citations were filed too early and dismissed. Fantasy still had to appeal the notice within the 30-day period. Its failure to do so automatically resulted in a violation. The dismissal of the original citations did not affect the original notice. Even though the court found the all-nude dancing was not a change in use, Fantasy was still committing an ongoing violation by disregarding the process mandated by the planning code. Therefore, the temporary court order was necessary to keep Fantasy from further violating the code. see also: Johnston v. Upper Macungie Township, 638 A.2d 408 (1994). see also: Pennsylvania Central Realty Investment Inc. v. Township of Middlesex, 566 A.2d 931 (1989). 14 Accessory Use - Covenience-store owner says it should be allowed to sell gasoline on the side Cumberland Farms Inc. v. Town of Scarborough, 688 A.2d 914 (Maine) 1997 Cumberland Farms Inc. owned a convenience store in a "town and village centers" (TVC) zone in Scarborough, Maine. It applied for a permit to sell gasoline on the property as an accessory use. The Scarborough zoning ordinance permitted gasoline filling stations in only two districts: the general business district and the highway business district. According to the ordinance, only activities that were allowed as permitted uses or special exceptions in any district could exist. Gasoline filling stations, as the ordinance defined them, were structures or land in which fuel was sold for retail "either as a principal or an accessory use." The town's code enforcement officer denied the application, and Cumberland Farms appealed to the Scarborough Board of Appeals. Mter a public hearing, the board decided gasoline filling stations were not allowed either as a principal or an accessory use in a TVC district. Cumberland Farms appealed to a court, and the court affirmed the board's decision. Cumberland Farms appeal~d. While it agreed that filling stations were not allowed as a principal use in the district, it argued filling stations should be permitted as an accessory use. DECISION: Affirmed. The court correctly found the ordinance prohibited gasoline filling stations as an accessory use. The ordinance prohibited any activities that were not permitted uses or allowed as special exceptions. Only two districts - the general business and the highway business districts - could have gasoline filling stations. Cumberland Farms incorrectly interpreted the ordinance. The ordinance clearly established a strong intent to restrict the presence of filling stations in