Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

qt).. ~ ., Z.B. November 10, 1997 - Page 5 was though a restitution order in a criminal prosecution. The appeals court reversed the order requiring the Hills to pay the towing and storage charges, and affirmed the denial of the permanent court order. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. The trial court's order requiring the Hills to pay the costs of removing and storing the vehicles was affirmed. The case was returned to the trial court for it to determine if any additional costs had accrued while the trial was pending. If the Hills failed to pay the costs, the city could dispose of their vehicles. The city's demand for payment of its costs as a condition for the return of the Hills' junk vehicles was reasonable. The ordinance regulating junkyard vehicles specifically provided the city could demand reimbursement of its towing and storage costs as part of the abatement process. The ordinance making a junk vehicle violation a misdemeanor didn't prevent the city from pursuing a civil remedy when the Hills used their junkyard in violation of their variance agreement. The city could pursue a civil remedy to prevent ordinance violations even though the ordinance in question was a criminal ordinance; the only effective relief from the nuisance was its abatement - a criminal prosecution wasn't enough. The trial court also properly refused to order the Hills' junkyard permanently closed. The limited order required the Hills to abide by the city's ordinances, and would subject the Hills to contempt charges if they failed to do so. see also: Town of Grundy Center v. Marion, 1 N.lv.2d 677 (1942). .j Planned Residential Development - Must developer get ordinance amended before it can establish development district? C & M Developers Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Bedminster Township, 695 A.2d 943 (Pennsylvania) 1997 C & M Developers Inc. owned two tracts ofland in the township of Bedminster, Pa. The tracts were about 81 acres and 121 acres and were located in an R-2 zone. Part of the township's zoning ordinance stated "any landowner" could request establishment of a planned residential development (PRD) "on a tract containing fifty (50) or more acres of land." C&M applied to the township board of supervisors to establish each of its tracts as a PRD. The board told C&M the ordinance dian't allow PRDs in R-2 zones. Therefore, it said C&M's applications were actually requests to amend the ordinance and would require public hearings. PRDs were described as a type of "use" in one part of the township's zoning ordinance. A "Table of Use Regulations" showed that PRDs were a permitted "use" by right only in R-3 zones. C&M appealed the board's decision to court. It argued the ordinance differentiated between PRD uses and PRD districts and that PRD districts could be established in any zone - not just in R-3 zones. The court rejected C&M's argument and upheld the board's decision. "" '';'