Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

Page 6 -- July 10, 2002 hauling business legal when it issued the enforcement notice against her recy- cling business, and 3) by refusing her request for a jury trial. The court denied her requests, and Britt appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court!s order was afl'mined. The .1992 enforcement notice i~'ormed Britt she had violated the zoning ordinance in two ways: byen=a=m=~, o' ~, in indusn-ial activities on a parcel smaller than 10 acres and by conducting recycling activities, wkich was not a permit- ted use in the agricultural district on parcels of any size. The notice cited the relevant zoning ordinancesl The Use of the term industrial activity; though broad, encompassed trash hauling, and Britt, in effect, admitted she knew her trash-hauling business rio, luted the zoning ordinance because she appl/ed for a variance in 1994. The enforcement notice adequately informed Britt of her violation and referred to the specific relevant sections of the ordinance. Britt was not entitled to a trial by jury because the relevant statutes did not provide for a .jury trial and her''cause of action did not exSst when the Pennsyl- vania Constitution was adopted in 1790. Citation: Township of Lower Mil/bM v. Britt, Commonwealth Court of ?erm~,Ivania, No. 2095 C.D. 200f (2002). see aL~o: Weft:. v. ChaPman To'~nsh. ip, 741 A.2d f272 (1999). Sig~ns ~ Car dealership seeks t° increase size and number of signs allowed Argued it would give advantage to competitors with.out new signs OHIO (6/4/02) -- Budget Car Sales operated a car dealership in the Vill~e of Groyeporr. In May 2000, Budget submitted an application for a variance, seek- lng permission to build more and larger outdoor_si=mas on the site than normally allowed under the local ordinance. Specifically, Budget iought to bu/td a 20- foot high, 50-square-foot freestanding sign at the northeast corner of its lot, and an additional 126-square-foot wall sign on its front wall. The ordinance allowed two signs per business, and Budget .already had two. Budget wanted to build another pole sign slx feet higher than allowed, which would also violate setback requirements, and the wall sign would exceed the size restrictions by 50 square feet. In support of its request, Budget argued refusal of the variance would consti'mre a hardship because the dealership could nor be seen by travel- ers on two nearby roads, and the lack of visibility was hurting i'ts business and hax'n~ng its abilit-y to compete with its competitors. Budget further noted the topo~aphy of the site and setbac~ contributed to the lack of visibiliu and that the request for additional signage was intended to help the situation. The town's board of zoning appeals scheduled a hearing. Tke staff report prepared by the board before the meeting recorrwnencted denyi~g the vari:mce. ~'ter Budget appeared at the hearing and presented evidence supporting irs request, thre: oi' the four board members still voted to den,./ the vaariance re- quest, in acc,",rdance with the staff report recommendation.