Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Page 2 -- April 25, 2003 432 Historic Preservation -- Developers seek to demolish house and barn They ptan replacement with restaurants and office buildings PENNSYLVANL~ (3/12/03) -- F.W. Tr/angle was the owner of property with a residence and a barn, each with historical significance. Both structures were more than 100 years old. The property was located in an A-Residential Zoning District, which was an area requiring conditional use permits for certain non-residential uses. In 2000, Triangle, Brandenberger, and Sheridan proposed a nonresidential development of the property to include restaurants and office buildings. They requested an opinion I¥om the township and submitted a site plan, which iden- tiffed the concept plan. The project was advertised in the local paper as having been in compliance with the use regulations of the zoni.ng ordinance and the provisions of the Dresher Overlay District. The developers applied for a demolition permit for the house and barn. On Feb. 8, 2001, the zoning officer issued a demolition permit for the barn, but not the house, because the house was constructed pr/or to 1900. The zoning ordi- nance provided that any building constructed prior to 1900 had to be retained and incorporated in a proposed development in a way that kept the appearance. of the building. The developers appealed to the zoning hearing board, which denied the appeal. The board stated the developers had not demonstrated the building was not compatible with their pr. oposed uses. The developers appealed to the court, which affm-ned the decision, and they again appealed, claiming they intended to turn the property into a vacant lot. DECISION: Affirmed. The court upheld the board's decision to deny the demolition permit. The zoning ordinance was incorporated by reference into the building code. The stated goal was the preservation of historic buildings, and this goal would have been defeated if the developers were allowed to demolish the building. The provisions of the building code controlled a demolition permit. Such a permit had to be rejected if it did not conform to all pertinent laws and ordi~ nances. The zoning ordinance was one such pertinent law. The court rejected the notion that the developers intended to make a vacant lot out of the property. Citation: FW Triangle L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Dublin Township, Commonwealth Court of Pcnnaytvania, No. 567 C.D. 2002 (2003). see also: Gwynedd Properties Inc. v. Lower Gwynedd Township, 615 A. 2d 836. (1992). Variances -- Board of appeals grants bed and breakfast in residential district Neighbors object, claimit2g no unnecessary hardship NEW YORK (2/27/03) -- Property owners resided in a three-family structure