Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z.B. July 10, 2002 --Page 5 property was proper and not the resUl.t of illegal spot zoning; the board's deci- sion was supported by substantial evidence. Citaxion: b~ re appeal of Realen Valley For. ge Greenes A~Sociates, ' Commonwealth Court of Penn~/lvania, No. 2782 C,D. 2000 (2002). Ordinances -- Property owner argued zoning enforcement Order did not. ~'ve her adequate.notice Fine increases on appeal from $237 to-$28,950 PENNSYLVANIA (6/5/02) -- Britt operated a trash-hauling and recycling busi- ness on a 3.7 acre piece of property, located in a district zoned for agricultural use in Lower ~[ilford Township. Br/ti's businesses had been a source of Conten- tion with the township since 1992, when the townsh.ip's solicitor notified Britt of a zoning ordinance violation. The violations were for conducting an indus- trial activity on property smaller than the 10-acre minimum and for conducting a recycling business, which was not a permitted use in the agricultural district. Br-/tt appealed to the zorfin~ hearing board but was unsuccessful. Britt then asked the township to amend the zoning ordinance to allow recYcling in the zoning district, but the township refused. Britt then appealed the decision of the board and the township to the tr/al court, but later discontinued her appeals dur/ng settlement discussions with the township. Ultimately, Britt ended her recycling business. In October 1994, Britt applied for a variance to operate the trash-hauling business. The board granted the variance, subject to certain conditions. The township appealed the board's decision to the n-iai court,, which affirmed the board's decision. The township appealed the court's decision. The appeals court remanded the case to the n/al court, order/ng it to find whether' the trash hauling b.usmess that predated the !986 zoning ordinance took place only on Br/tr's property:If so, Britt's' business would have been a lawful nonconforming use which could have been continued by special exceP-- tion, even if her property did not meet the size requirement. The trial court remanded the matter to the board, which found the trash-hauling business had not taken place exclusively on Britt's property, and defeated Britt's claim~: Bhtt appealed the board's decision. The trial court afl'tuned the decision, finding Brirt's trash-hauling operahon constituted a violation of the zoning ordinance. The township then. sued Britt for operathng the.trash hauling busi- ness in violation of the ordinance and a court order and freed her $237. Britt appealed the fine to the township's board of arbitrators, Which upheld the court's order and increased the fine to $9,500. Britt appealed the fine, and a non-j ury rnal was held, a'fter which the court entered judgment against Britt and increased the frae to $18,950. Britt asked the court for post-trial relief, alleging the court erred by 1) con- cluding the 1992 notice was valid because it trod o~y targeted her recycling business. 2) by refusin= Br/rr s e ~idence the township [-,ad considered her trash- 113