Laserfiche WebLink
118 <br /> <br />Page 2 -- July 25, 2002 <br /> <br />Use Permits -- Public opposition causes tavern to lose use permit <br />Owner ctaira; revocation was arbitrary <br /> <br />P~4'NSY~¥ANLk (06/12/02) -- Ryan purchased a tavern/restaurant at a fore- <br />closure sale w/th the provision that the Lower Met/on Township would ap- <br />prove certain renovations on the second floor. The owner hired an arch/tect, <br />who dreTM up the plans, and both met with the Director of Building Regulations <br />and' Zoning Officer (Duncan). <br /> Duncan noticed the plans included an expansion of the facility and there <br />might be a requirement for a certain number of parking spaces. However, <br />Duncan told the owner since the proposed use was a restaurant, he would qualify <br />to use off-street public.parldng in accordance with the local ordinance. The <br />owner then filled out a "change of use or occupancy ~/ppl_ication" and indicated <br />the proposed use of the structure was a restaurant. <br /> Duncan issued a use permit on March 4, 1999. The notice of a pending <br />liquor license was posted, and local newspapers wrote articles identifying the <br />owner as the same owner of "S~nokey Joe's," which was a favored estabLish- <br />ment for local college students:Public opposition mounted. <br /> On Apr'J_l 7, 1999, the owner met with Duncan and the local fi_re marshal to <br />determine a sprinkler issue. Duncan claimed the architect arrived early for the <br />meeting and, during their conversation, he learned there w. ould be karaoke and <br />dancing at the location. <br /> On April 8, ..1999, Duncan notified the owner the use permit was revoked. <br />The. revocation included a letter that provided the establishment was to be used <br />~ a taproom/night club, not a restaurant. Certain parking issues were raised. <br /> "The owner appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board, alleging the revocation <br />was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to'local ordinances. The owner also claimed <br />kis vested fights in the use perm/t were also violated. The appeal was denied. <br /> 'After the permit was revoked, the Grog, which the .owner a/leges was a <br />~mi]ar establishment, was issued a use permit that allowed the use of pubhc <br />parking spaces. <br /> The owner filed a complaint aga/nst local officials in their official and indi- <br />vidual capacities. He alleged a civil conspiracy and intentional interference <br />with an att'ual contractual and business relationship. The local officials asked <br />the court for judgment in theft- favor. <br />DECISION: Granted in part. <br /> The members of the zoning hearing board were performing a quasi-judicial <br />role and were granted judicial immunity. Ail clam against them in their indi- <br />vidmd capacity were dismissed. .. <br /> The court also dismissed the,'~onspiracy and interference with contract <br />charges for lack of sufficient evidence.. <br /> The court did ~hnd, however, a genuine issue of fact with regard to whether <br />the decision was arbitrary., capricious, or base_it on an improper motive. Here, <br />the officials conceded the owner did have a protected property interest. In ad- <br />dition, the owner presented suffic/ent evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue <br /> <br /> <br />