![]() The Township argues that the dilapidated condition of the old garage/chicken coop prevented the structure from being used as a garage for a substantial period of time and supports the conclusion that the use was abandoned. The Township contends that Landowner abandoned the nonconforming use by allowing the old garage/chicken coop to fall into a state of disrepair. ![]() Here, the sole issue is whether Landowner abandoned the nonconforming use. "A lawful nonconforming use establishes in the property owner a vested property right which cannot be abrogated or destroyed unless it is a nuisance, it is abandoned or it is extinguished by eminent domain." Keystone Outdoor Advertising v. Landowner also asserts that the trial court erred in relying upon Tantlinger for the proposition that the replacement of "one nonconforming structure with another nonconforming structure" is prohibited. Specifically, *736 Landowner claims that the ZHB erred in rejecting Landowner's argument that he is entitled to erect the proposed garage as a continuation of a nonconforming usei.e., the replacement of a lawful nonconforming structure. In his appeal to this court, Landowner contends that the ZHB committed an abuse of discretion and an error of law when it denied Landowner a building permit because the area of Landowner's proposed garage exceeds the maximum permitted by section 182-711.B(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. 73, 519 A.2d 1071 (1987), prohibited the replacement of one nonconforming structure with another. Zoning Hearing Board of South Union Township, 103 Pa.Cmwlth. at 85a-86a.) Nevertheless, the trial court affirmed the ZHB and denied Landowner's appeal, concluding that this court's decision in Tantlinger v. On appeal, the trial court found that four of the provisions relied upon by the ZHB were inapplicable and, therefore, the ZHB committed errors of law. ![]() When the Township denied his application for a building permit, Landowner appealed to the ZHB, which denied his appeal based on five provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Landowner, however, contends that he is entitled to build the proposed garage as a replacement of a lawful nonconforming structure. 2, 7 § 182-711.B(2) of the Zoning Ordinance.) Landowner's proposed garage, measuring twenty-four feet by thirty-two feet, would exceed that limit. Under the Township zoning ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), an accessory garage in that zoning district may be no larger than twenty-five feet by twenty-five feet. 5, 1995.) Landowner's property is zoned R-6, Medium Density Residential. Landowner applied to Haverford Township (Township) for a building permit to replace a deteriorated, nonconforming garage/chicken coop with a smaller nonconforming garage. Winterhalter, Philadelphia, for appellees.īefore DOYLE, President Judge, FRIEDMAN, J., and McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge.ĭavid Money (Landowner) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County (trial court) which affirmed the decision of the Zoning Hearing *735 Board of Haverford Township (ZHB) denying Landowner's application for a building permit to replace one nonconforming use with another. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP and Haverford Township.Ĭommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |