Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

Z.B. July 25, 1997 - Page 7 Lindteigen asked a court to review the commission's decision. The court affirmed. Lindteigen appealed again, claiming the city commission's denial of the application was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. DECISION: Affirmed. The city commission's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The commission could grant a special-use permit only if the airport's benefits outweighed any potential problems for the surrounding neighborhoods. The commission reviewed evidence about the potentially excessive noise and threats to public safety and determined the potential detriment to the community exceeded any private benefits to Lindteigen. In addition, allowing land in the middle of a rural residential community to be rezoned agricultural for an airport would exemplify poor land-use planning. ICO Zoning Violation - Can borough stop owners from repairing vehicles in their garage? Zangrilli v. Zoning Hearing Board, 692 A.2d 656 (Pennsylvania) 1997 The Zagrillis owned a two-story home in a Dormont, Pa., residential district. At the back of their property, they owned a detached two-car garage where they did auto-repair maintenance work. The borough sent an enforcement notice to the Zagrillis, ordering them to stop the auto work in their garage. It said the garage, which the Zagrillis converted into a repair shop, was not a permissible use in the zone. The notice referred to the borough's ordinance, which limited the district to single- and two-family residences and essential services. It also referred to another portion of the ordinance, which defined "private garage" as a building for storing and repairing vehicles that belonged to the owner, tenants, or those who had a lease agreement with the owners. The Zagrillis appealed to the borough's zoning hearing board. They didn't deny that they were operating a repair shop, but claimed the ordinance violated the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions. Specifically, the Zagrillis claimed the ordinance discriminated between private garage owners (which the Zagrillis were) and carport or private parking-lot owners, who the Zagrillis claimed could do repair and maintenance work on their properties. The board found the Zagrillis were p~rforming auto-repair work in their garage, and said evidence suggested "that repairs were being made to a substantial number of vehicles." The board said auto-repair work was not consistent with a residential zone's general welfare and denied the Zagrillis' constitutional claim. The borough's zoning officer testified he would have taken similar action if repair work were conducted in a carport. According to the borough, no auto- repair work was allowed in the Zagrillis' district - not in any structure, garage, or carport. The Zagrillis appealed to a trial court. The court affirmed the board's decision