Sylvia Swede called it an “unbearable” situation.
She and her husband had lived next door to Calabrette Excavating in Richland Township for years without any complaints. Then one day, the trucks started showing up, bringing noise and dust.
They needed help, so they sought the services of a Doylestown land use lawyer and turned to the firm of Benner and Wild.
Read more about Zoning Appeal Case Study: Swede v. Richland Township
Last year, thousands of people signed a petition in support of Sit. Stay, a Newtown doggy daycare that was seeking a zoning variance that would have allowed it to stay in business.
People tend to love dogs, and the people who care for them. But when it comes to zoning, the law is the law. Even ten thousand dog lovers can’t change it.
Fortunately for its owners and supporters, the Newtown Township zoning board sided with the doggie daycare, clearing the way for it to stay in business.
And while it’s nice to have the community on your side when filing zoning appeals, Doylestown residents and business owners should also have a land use attorney by their side during this process.
As you’ll see, getting your property rezoned can be quite complicated.
Whether you want to construct a new building or make changes to an existing one, there’s a good chance your project will mean a journey into the world of land development and zoning.
Stay in business long enough and chances are you will need to expand. How that expansion happens, however, is up to your community’s PA zoning laws.
Whether you live in a big city, a small borough or a sprawling rural township, your municipality has a set of regulations that determines how different areas can be used.
Some areas are for residential, some for commercial, for industrial, etc. The community gets divided into zones, hence the term “zoning.” Communities create zoning hearing boards to regulate what gets built or expanded inside the different zones.
You might say that this is the story of a “sweet” legal victory for Benner and Wild.
One of our clients is Moo Hope Ice Cream in New Hope. Owners Marlene and Larry Panzica purchased the property at 22 S. Main St. – formerly the home of Gerenser’s Exotic Ice Cream – and fixed it up.
At a recent meeting, William Benner convinced New Hope Borough Council to allow the Panzicas to expand the ice cream shop and add a second and third story dwelling to the property.
In doing so, Mr. Benner was successful in getting council to overturn an April 5 decision by the borough’s Historic and Architectural Review Board (HARB) which denied a certificate of appropriateness that would have allowed Moo Hope to expand.
At an April 19 hearing before borough council, Mr. Benner was able to demonstrate that the ice cream shop’s plans satisfied the community’s guidelines.
Our case before council included testimony from project architect Michael Burns, an expert in historic rehabilitation. When testimony concluded, council unanimously approved the certificate of appropriateness, subject to two minor design changes that do not alter any essential feature of the ice cream shop’s plans.
If you are preparing to go before a historic/architectural review board, zoning board or planning commission, it is not a good idea to go alone.
The attorneys at Benner and Wild have successfully litigated and argued land use and zoning cases before the courts of common pleas the Commonwealth Court.
We have represented major development companies building large shopping centers, apartment complexes, housing developments and industrial sites. We also represent small businesses seeking to expand and homeowners who need zoning relief to make minor changes to their properties.
Contact us today and we can make sure your interests are represented when it comes time to build.
One of the more perplexing issues that confront land use lawyers and their clients is the question whether their actions or that of their predecessor or that planned by their purchasers or tenants jeopardizes a protected nonconforming use.
Consider, for a moment, that an owner has used his or her property as a parking lot for many years before the township adopted its first zoning ordinance. The same consideration would apply if the owner secured a zoning permit for this use under permissive zoning regulations that later changed to eliminate parking lots as a permitted use. In either case, settled law would recognize the parking lot use as a constitutionally protected nonconforming use, a right that runs with the land. Thus, if the property owner decided to sell or to lease the land to another who wanted to operate a parking lot on the property, the new owner or tenant would have the unquestioned right to continue the activity irrespective of any later changes in zoning regulations.
The problem arises when the use stops for a period. A related problem arises when the proposed purchaser or new tenant wants to engage in a use that is only similar to the protected use but not identical and involves activities that embraced by the former use. Then what?
During the last week of February, Edward M. Wild successfully represented Green Tree Group Contracting during its petition to change the zoning on two parcels in New Britain Borough.
Wild presented the zoning change to New Britain Borough Council on February 24, 2015, before a packed audience of neighbors who opposed the change.
Throughout several appearances before Borough Council, Wild presented the benefits that the change in zoning could bring to New Britain Borough, including the removal of a nonconforming use in a residential neighborhood, the tax benefits, and various other economic benefits.
Read more about Benner and Wild Successful in Zoning Change Petition
On December 9, 2013 The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed decisions of the Bedminster Township Building Code of Appeals Board and the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas and found that Rainbow Ridge Equestrian Center’s proposed barn with an area for exercising horses required no building permit. The Court adopted Benner and Wild’s position that an agricultural building may be both agricultural and commercial and remain exempt from permit requirements.
Benner and Wild Prevail in Zoning Appeal
Edward M. Wild, Esquire, a partner at Benner and Wild Attorneys at Law who has represented developers, national and local businesses and property owners involved in zoning appeals and disputes, successfully argued to the Commonwealth Court that a barn building that has commercial attributes can maintain its status as an agricultural building so long as access to some members of the public is regulated through restrictions that included gates and locked key pads and the members of the public had contracts with Rainbow Ridge. Attorney Wild convinced the Court that the partially constructed barn would not be open to the public any more than a private residence is open to the public. Read more about Benner and Wild Prevail For Rainbow Ridge Equestrian Center In Zoning Appeal Battle
William Benner successfully represented a group of residents in Bedminster Township of Bucks County who had opposed the introduction of a commercial enterprise into their residentially-zoned community.
As sometimes happens in zoning cases, the zoning hearing board was sympathetic to the applicant granting a use variance relying on the de minimis variance doctrine as its legal foundation.
The applicant successfully argued to the zoning hearing board that his planned commercial enterprise of selling autos over the internet had little or no tangible impact on the neighborhood. The applicant could not qualify for a no-impact home based business because his business plan included storing up to five cars on the property. Feeling aggrieved, several neighbors appealed the decision to the Bucks County Court contending that the zoning hearing board improperly expanded the de minimis variance doctrine.
Read more about Real Estate Attorny Case Study: Zoning Appeals Bucks County