Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

August 1, 20071 Volume 11 No. 15 The board again denied Mueller's variance, and Mueller appealed to court. The court found that, based on the record, the board had abused its discretion. The court stated that ir was "not enough to have lhe neigh- bors simply rise and testify al a hearing lhat they don't want to [have] a house builT in one spot or another, or that they would rather see the lot preserved as open space." Additionally, there was undisputed, credible evidence from a professional planner that the variance was necessary. The court reversed the board's decision and awarded Mueller the variance. The board did not appeal the coun's decision, but a neighboring prop- erty owner did. Decision: Affirmed. The appeals court stated that decisions by local zoning boards en- joyed a strong presumption of validity because "local officials who are thoroughly familiar wilh their communiry's characteristics and interests and are the proper representatives of its people are undoubtedly the best equipped" to decide on issues such as variances. However, iI noted, deci- sions by zoning boards were not completely immune from judicial scruti- ny. A board's decision would be overturned if it was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or illegal. A variance was permitted where the strict application of any ZOnil"1g regulations under the pertinem ordinance resulted ill "peculiar and excep- lionaJ praclicaJ difficuhies to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the developer of such propert)'." Reasons for granting a variance includ- ed: 1) exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of properLY, 2) exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecling a specific piece of property, or 3) an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or a lawfully existing structures on the property. The COurI found thaI, given the Ieslimony given at the hearings, the property in question salisned the criteria set forth for variances. The low- er court had reviewed the proceedings before the board carefully, and the record fully supported 1:hat court's findings and conclusions. The decision of the lower court was therefore affirmed. See also: Cell South Of New Jersey, Inc. v. Zoning Ed. Of Adjustment Of West Windsor Tp., 172 N.]. 75, 796 A.2d 247 (2002). Junkyard-Salvage company seeks to be reclassified as a 'processing facility' Township insists company must meet conditions in jun..1cyard ordinance instead Citation: Joe Darrah, Inc. v. Zoning HeaTing Ed. of Spring Garden Tp., 2007 WL 1964379 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) PENNSYLVANIA (07/09/07)-Darrah operated J&K Salvage on prop- erty he leased in Spring Garden Township. The land was approxil-nately 5.7 acres and located in an industrial use district. The property's owner 7 119