Narrative Opinion Summary
In this zoning dispute, the Wharys challenged the decision of the Zerbe Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB), which granted them a variance to maintain horses and a pole building on their property, contingent upon manure removal and maintaining a 200-foot buffer from a highway. Their property spans two zoning districts: M-L Manufacturing, where horses are allowed, and R-SU Residential, where they are not. Following an enforcement notice citing zoning violations, the Wharys appealed to the ZHB, which heard complaints about odors. The ZHB upheld the variance with conditions to address these concerns. The Wharys further appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, arguing procedural violations by the ZHB under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and challenging the imposition of the buffer zone. The trial court dismissed their affidavit as hearsay and found procedural issues waived due to lack of additional evidence. The court upheld the ZHB's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The appeal focused on whether the ZHB's actions constituted an abuse of discretion or legal error. Ultimately, the conditions imposed by the ZHB were deemed reasonable and necessary under the township’s zoning ordinance, affirming the variance while ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.
Legal Issues Addressed
Applicability of Zoning Ordinance Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Wharys cannot use residentially zoned property for horse maintenance due to odor issues, despite ordinance provisions allowing limited cross-district use.
Reasoning: The Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) identified an odor issue associated with horse maintenance on the Wharys’ property, leading to protective measures for neighboring properties.
Procedural Due Process in Zoning Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court deemed that any procedural violations by the ZHB were waived due to the Wharys' failure to present additional evidence.
Reasoning: The Wharys submitted an affidavit from Carol Whary in support of their land use appeal, which the trial court rejected, deeming it hearsay and not valid testimony. The court noted the Wharys had the opportunity to present additional testimony but did not.
Standards for Abuse of Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate review was limited to assessing whether the ZHB's decision was supported by substantial evidence or involved an abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: Following this, the Wharys appealed, with the review limited to whether the ZHB acted with manifest abuse of discretion or legal error, as no further evidence was presented.
Substantial Evidence Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ZHB's imposition of a buffer zone and conditions for horse maintenance was supported by substantial evidence related to odor control.
Reasoning: The ZHB had determined that maintaining horses was permitted in the M-L Manufacturing District but not in the R-SU Residential District, which included the restricted area of the Wharys' property.
Zoning Variance and Vested Rightssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ZHB granted the Wharys a variance to continue using a pole building for horses, contingent upon manure removal and a buffer zone from the highway.
Reasoning: The ZHB granted the Wharys a variance and vested rights for (1) the continued use of a pole building on their property, contingent on regular manure removal to prevent nuisance; and (2) the maintenance of horses, provided they are kept at least 200 feet away from Pennsylvania Highway Route 225.