Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

Z.B. December 24, 2006 - Page 7 ( additional living space. An inspector found that MDM had don.e the work without the proper permits, and the home ~as operating in violation of the zoning classification for the distril;~. ,MD~ was cited for the violations and given two weeks to correct them. , MDM stopped the constructionf<l114 ap~liedfo~the necessary permits - including the conditional use permj,t' so th~t it could continue to operate its program at the existing location. Met initial. indications from the county plan- ning commission that the condition(!.luse pep11itwouldbe approved, a hearing was held at which several neighbor~opposef;i theJacility, Ultinlately, the com- mission voted to deny the condition~use pefmit. The commission cited neigh- borhood incompatibility as the reason. for the denial. MD M sued in court claiming violations of the Religious Land Use Act and various constitutional rights. DECISION: Judgment for the county. . To succeed at trial, MDM had,to prov~every element of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that, whileMDM's use of the property did constitute a religious use, the 'county's denial of the conditional use permit did not substantially limit its ability to exercise that use. MDM was free to relocate its program \0 another part of the county; there were areas that allowed residential facilities ~uch asMDM's without a permit. It was not enough for MDM to argue that relocating would be inconvenient or make the program less effective. As long ~sotherlocations were reasonably available, the county had not imposed a substantial burden on MDM's reli- gious rights. Additionally, MDM did not have to conduct its program as a residential facility. It could carry outits mission in other ways - for example, as a non-residential program - without violating the code. It was within a zoning commission's authority to deny a conditional use permit based on concerns for public'health and safety or neighborhood com- patibility i?oncems. Here, the comniission citedincbmpatibility with the neigh- borhoods residential character, which was a valid reason for denial. Ultimately, neither the county's regulations nor its actions precluded MDM from engaging in religious exercise. MDM had to comply with the same zomng requirements as secular organizations. see also: Warner'v. City of Boca Raton, 88,7 So.2d 1035 (2004). Signs - Advertising company argu,es loc~ordin:ance excludes industry~ standard billboards Township argues ordinance reasonab.ly related to public safety concerns Citation: Township of Exeter v. Zoning ~earing Board of Exeter Township, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvani(1., Npo 2545 C.D. 2005 (2006) PENNSYLVANIA (11/01/06) - Land Disp1;:tysInc. ,fIled 11 applications with the township of Exeter for permits to)efect bi~lboards in various locations. Each @ 2006 West, a Thomson business. QuinlanJ'Mfs a.Thom~.cm West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 155