Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"' <br /> <br />Page 6 - May 25, 1997 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />street development, or drainage or erosion control or any other damage control." <br />One of Parrott's general contractors agreed the plans were incomplete, but said <br />from his experience, only a sketch plan was required for a permit, with more <br />detailed plans developed after the permit was issued. <br />A number of property owners contested the development, arguing Parrott's <br />application should be dismissed because it was incomplete and did not comply <br />with the zoning ordinance. <br />The board decided to issue the conditional use permit, and the property <br />owners appealed to a court. The court affirmed the board's decision, and the <br />owners appealed aga.in. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br />The property owners were correct to oppose the board's decision to issue <br />the permit. The board didn't have the authority to approve a plan that wasn't <br />complete. <br />According to The American Heritage College Dictionary, the word <br />"complete" meant "having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; <br />entire." Parrott's application was not complete - it contained only sketches of <br />the development, not the detailed plans required by the ordinance. The ordinance <br />clearly stated that "complete final plans" were necessary to receive a conditional <br />use permit. . <br />Parrot could still apply for preliminary approval, for which the requirements <br />were not as stringent. <br /> <br />Variance - Neighbors put brakes on owner's parking lot plan <br />Allegheny West Civic Council v. ZoningBoard of Adjustment of the City <br />of Pittsburgh, 689 A.2d 225 (Pennsylvania) 1997 <br />In 1985, Irwin Associates bought a vacant lot in a multiple-family residential <br />zone. It wanted to develop apartments on the property. <br />Mter discovering that federal funding was not available for the project, <br />Irwin Associates entered into contracts to sell the property in three parcels for <br />housing development. The total price was $431,500. <br />The agreements fell through, however, when environmental testing revealed <br />the land was contaminated with chemicals. <br />Saying it would be too costly to clean up the land for housing, Irwin <br />Associates asked the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment if it could use the <br />property as an open-air parking lot. To do so, Irwin Associates needed use and <br />dimensional variances. <br />The Allegheny West Civic Council opposed the parking-lot project, saying <br />it preferred residential development on the property. <br />The zoning board heard testimony during four hearings. At one hearing, <br />the civic council's attorney handed the president of Irwin Associates a contract <br />offering to buy the property for $200,000. Irwin Associates' president testified <br />he was unable to evaluate the offer on the witness stand, so the civic council <br />sent the offer by mail. At a later hearing, the president said he rejected the offer f:J5 <br />