Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

120 Page 2 --January 25, 2003 ms gasoline sales p of convenience store use PENNSYLVANIA (12/05/02) --.Sheetz, applied for a permit..to build, a conve- ' nience store with self-service sale of motor fuels. , ' The .Township-Code Enforcement Officer disapproved Sheetz.~s apPlica- 'ti0n on grounds the sale of motor fuel was not a permitted use in lhe business district ....... Sheetz appealed to the 'Zoning Hearing B'oard and .requested a {ariance. Alternatively, Sheetz requested aN in{erpreiati0n of the ordinance todetermine whether the sale of m6tor fuels qualified.as a permitted use. .' The board determined gasoline sales were inherent to the Principal,' bUsi- ness of conven/en~e stores. Because Sheet's proposal included n6 serVice bays, it was not a "gasOline serviCe station'" under the ordinance, consequently, the board determined Sheet's proposal was solely a convenience st0re,'notwith~ standing the addition of gaSoline pumps. Sheetz was allowed to see motor fuels. Alessi, a neighboring property owner, sued. The Court ruled in favor of Sheetz. Alessi appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Sheetz was not entitled to sell motor fuels under the ordinance. Although the ordinance did not provide.a specific definition, it neverthe- less imparted an unambiguous meaning to the term "convenience" store. Through the insertion of the parenthetiCal phrase' (including, convemence) between "grocery" and "stores," the ordinance left no doubt a "con,zenience" store was not a separate and distinct entity, but, rather, a variety of grocery store. Since a "convenience" store was a type of grocery store, it was apparent the use did not normally encompass gasoline sales. GasOline sales were' com- pletely omitted from the relevant section. In relegating convenience stores to their identity as a type of grocery, the section placed the use together with meat, poultry, fish, ~uit, and vegetable markets, all of which were traditional retail food enterprises. Under the section, Sheetz could not sell gasoline. Citation: Alessi v. MilIcreek Township Zoning Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 713 C.D. 2002 (2002). see also: Gustin v. Zoning Board of Sayre Borough, 423 A,2d 1085 (1980). see al~o: Kissell v. Fergu~on. Township Zoning Hearing Board, 729 A.2d 194 ('1999), . Nonconforming Use -- Township tries to close aluminum landfill OHIO (1.2/06/02) --The Denmark Township Zoning Inspector'determined the nonconforming use status of Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co: Inc.'s landZ £fll had been abandoned due to Aluminum Smelting~s voluntary discontinu, ance of the use as a. captive landfill for over two years. Aluminum Smelting appealed the decision, arguing the landfzlt was a non- conforming use predating the zoning resolution. Aluminum Smelting claimed I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I