Domeisen, et al. v. ZHB of O’Hara Twp., 814 A.2d 851 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003):

Case Details:

Note: Distinguished by West Central Germantown Neighbors v. ZHB of Philadelphia, 827 A.2d 1283

The Commonwealth Court affirmed the grant of a special exception and related variances for the relocation and expansion of a landscaping and retail sales business, but vacated and remanded the variance for a sign. The applicant operated a family-owned landscaping business for 50 years; in 1966 it was granted nonconforming status upon filing a “certificate of occupancy.” In 2000, the applicant applied for an expansion of the nonconforming use; two months later that applicant submitted a new and reduced application. The present use occupies 1.8% of a 12-acre lot; the proposed use will occupy a 2.4% of the lot, a 129% increase in floor area and well beyond the 25% expansion limitation in the zoning ordinance. The Commonwealth Court found that the proposed expansion was a natural expansion that was not excessive, but the minimum necessary to support the business. The Commonwealth Court also found that the applicant had met the standards for variance applicable to a nonconforming use. The Court specifically found that the proposed expansion was the minimum required for the business to remain financially viable. With respect to the sign variance, the Court held that the Zoning Hearing Board had erred because it failed to make any findings or to explain its rational for the grant of the variance, and remanded the case to the Board with the directive to make findings on the issue.

No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this website. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue, or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herin. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice.