Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Z.B. April 10, 2002 -- Page 5 DECISION: Affirmed. The club could not show the business was a nonconforming use. The court noted, if the operation, of the club for adult entertainment was a legal nonconforming use, it lost that status when the owner acquired a vari- ance. Then, the nonconforming use status lapsed. The zoning board properly considered evidence that the continued opera- tion of the adult enterta/nment club was illegal. The owner did not prove an unnecessary hardship if the variance was not approved, nor did the owner prove the board's decision was contrary to the public interest. Citation: 8131 Roosevelt Corp. v. Zoning Board ©f Adjusrmenr of the City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, .No. 2888 C.D. 2000 (2002). ' see also: City 'of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board Of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 559 A.2d 896 (2989). Special Use Permit -- Residents object to business park with gas station Claim a negative impact on environment and quality of life NEW YORK (02/28/02) -- The z6ning board of appeals '~anted a special use~ permit to a developer for the development of a business park. The developer submitted a final generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) and a short environmental assessment form (EAF) to the board. From the GEIS and the EAF, the board concluded the plan was in compliance with existing zoning and other land. use regulations. Nearby residents and landowners sued, clairning the board should not have granted the special use permit. They cited a number of environmental and quality of life issues. The petitioners also argued part- of the' plan called for the con- struction of a gasoline station in violation of the town zoning ordinance. The lower court dismissed that action, and the petitioners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's findings were reasonable, and the special use permit was valid. The board's f'mdings with regard to the environmental issues were "en- tirely reasonable and rational based on the record before it.", Since the devel- oper stuck to the conditions in the GEIS., there was no need for the board to perform a supplemental environmental review. " The court also looked ar the gasoline station issue and pointed t°'a previous heating in 1997. The board f'rrst approved the gas station and issued a special use permit. The residents never challenged that decision. Thus, they could not challenge the gas station at this point. Citation: O'Donnell v. Town of Schoharie, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd Dept, No. 89232 (2002). see also: Gershowitz v. Plam~ing Board of the Town of Brookhaven, 417N.E. 2d 1000. 247