Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Z.B. September 25, 1997 - Page 7 , , -' i ;. ..l '......~ The citizens received notice the day after the city's decision, but nonethe- less waited 21 more days before filing a notice of appeal. The statute was clear: It established the decision's finality as the day on which it was made - and the date from which an appeal to LUBA ran. The time when the city gave notice of its decision had nothing to do with when the decision became final and appealable. The appeals court overruled the 1986 court case on which the citizens relied. see also: League of Women Voters v. Coos County, 729 P.2d 588 (1986). Crist v. City of Beaverton, 922 P.2d 1253 (1996). \60 Appeal - Landowner appeals enforcement notice to zoning board Yost v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Canonsburg, 694 A.2d 384 (Pennsylvania) 1997 Yost owned a tract of land with 3 acres in the Borough of Canonsburg, Pa. These acres were in a low-density, residential zone. Yost used the property for a landscaping business - a valid, preexisting, nonconforming use. Yost asked the borough's planning commission to rezone the land to a light industrial district, but the planning commission refused. The borough's zoning ordinance required an annual certificate of occupancy for nonconforming use. The borough council ordered Yost to apply within two business days for the certificate. The council said it would approve Yost's application subject to certain conditions (restricting the hours of operation, the types of materials stored on the property, etc.). However, the council also said that if Yost failed to apply for the certificate within the time limit, the borough's enforcement officer would issue him a notice of violation. Yost did not apply for a certificate of occupancy. The enforcement officer issued a zoning enforcement notice to Yost, alleging Yost violated the zoning ordinance and failed to comply with the council's conditions. Yost appealed the zoning enforcement notice to the zoning hearing board, arguing he did not have to apply for a certificate of occupancy subject to the imposed conditions. The board held a hearing on Aug. 22, 1995, but did not vote on Yost's appeal. On Oct. 19, 1995, the board denied Yost's appeal at a meeting. On Feb. 15, 1996, the borough sent Yost a copy of the minutes of the Oct. 19 meeting, but did not set forth any findings of fact or reasons for the denial. Yost timely appealed the board's decision in court. State planning law required a zoning board to give a written decision or, when no decision was needed, to make written findings on an application within 45 days of the last hearing. When a board denied an application, it had to give written findings and reasons for its decision. If the board failed to give a decision within the time limit, then the decision was deemed to have been in the applicant's favor. Another state planning law required the board mail or personally deliver to the applicant a copy of its decision by the day after the decision. Under both laws, an "applicant" was a landowner who had filed an application for development.