![]() 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, 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 use - i.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.430, 658 A.2d 741 (1995), our supreme court granted a country club permission to demolish its old, dilapidated nonconforming maintenance shed and replace it with a new one on exactly the same site. Zoning Hearing Board of Harrison Township, 540 Pa. 1981), we held that the razing of a building that is a nonconforming use does not eliminate the landowner's right to continue that use by erection of another building also nonconforming as to use. Ross Township Zoning Hearing Board, 426 A.2d 728 (Pa.Cmwlth. Courts have permitted landowners to demolish nonconforming structures and replace them with new nonconforming structures. ![]() at 4) rather, it prohibits only the replacement of a nonconforming structure with a different type of structure. Thus, contrary to the trial court's interpretation, Tantlinger does not prohibit the replacement of "one nonconforming structure with another nonconforming structure," (see trial court op. Rejecting this argument, we explained, "Clearly, the complete removal of a nonconforming structure, and replacement of it with a different type of structure, is an abandonment of the nonconforming use thus eliminated, and is inconsistent with the concept of continuing it." Tantlinger, 519 A.2d at 1074 (emphasis added). In that case, the landowners replaced a nonconforming mobile home with a modular home, which was a conforming use, arguing, inter alia, entitlement to do so as a continuation of a nonconforming use. Indeed, this was the basis of our conclusion in Tantlinger.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |