Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />best route of access w the property, which established the advancement <br />of the borough's zoning D.-"1terests. <br />The board appealed. <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The appeals court had to review the record, giving the board's decision <br />a "presumption of validity." However, the board's decision could not <br />be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The appeals court noted that <br />"[a]lthough [the board's] determiL-"1ation [was] entitled to deference, that <br />deference assumes [the board's] use of the appropriate legal standard. <br />The lower court stated that "there [was] only one legal conclusion <br />that the board could reach and that [was] that the county planning <br />board controls the manner of ingress and egress on county roads...and <br />that the [developer] was duty bound to subscribe to that view." The ap- <br />peals court agreed vvith this finding, noting that the developer was not <br />trying to avoid the jurisdiction of the board, but, rather, it recognized <br />that the county had superior jurisdiction. The developer was not re- <br />quired to challenge the county's ordinance in order to prove a hardship <br />existed'-the hardship existed because the developer was required by the <br />county to submit a plan vvit..h an exit on County Road despite the fact <br />that it contradicted the ordinance. <br />U1timately, the directive of the county superseded the borough's deci- <br />sion. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br /> <br />-\;j'~~i;~f,~f_ti~~~i~n~i~j;-~~:~~~~~~~~~~~iJ4#i~I;~~~~;~t-:~~~f~;:;~~-~ <br /> <br />.:..._.:::.:_":::'.:i:::;.;:::.'::':~~;"6-: ,:',:.-'~.,:-: -.~-~,-'::::.S'::::.:,-2':.c'j:-:,; :"~h-.:i...:...:....---'--'- ,: __. '"-":..;..L......:.;..:~~L.. :'.,-;:._ .; _ _-' ..::-.::~':':~::.:....~,-',:,;;,._~,:,.. .".!...'.:.z... <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />200 <br />