|
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF RUAN LEASING CO. |
: : : |
WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD DOCKET NO. 2003.07 |
DECISION DENYING USE VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A
TRUCK MAINTENANCE FACILITY IN THE
COMMERCIAL
HIGHWAY (CH) DISTRICT
Applicant
has requested a use variance from the permitted uses in the Commercial Highway
(CH) District to permit a truck maintenance facility use.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1. The Applicant is Ruan Leasing Co. of
2725 North Wesleyan Boulevard, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, 27804.
2. The owner of the subject property is SV
Realty of 7429 Allentown Boulevard, Harrisburg, PA, 17112.
3. The subject property is located at 7385
Allentown Boulevard, West Hanover Township.
4. The tax parcel number for the subject
property is 68-028-082.
5. The subject property is located in the
Commercial Highway (CH) District.
6. The Applicant is seeking to use the
existing facilities located at the subject property to operate a truck
maintenance facility to perform maintenance on trucks owned by the Applicant.
7. Most of the time the vehicles at the
proposed facility would be limited to the tractor but at times the trailer may
be brought to the maintenance facility with the tractor.
8. Almost all of the truck traffic to the
proposed facility would come from the Dermody warehouse facility.
9. The Applicant's employees would pick up
the trucks to be serviced from the client's facility, bring them back to the
subject property to service them and then deliver them back to the client's
facility.
10. The Applicant proposes to utilize part
but not all of the subject property for the proposed truck maintenance facility
use.
11. Notice of the public hearing held on May
8, 2003 was properly advertised, notice was posted at the Municipal Building,
the subject property was properly posted and all adjoining property owners were
notified of the hearing by certified mail.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Article XII of the Zoning Ordinance
does not provide that a truck maintenance facility is a permitted use or a use
permitted by conditional use in the Commercial Highway (CH) District.
2. Section 195-199 of the Zoning Ordinance
and Section 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code allow the
Zoning Hearing Board to act on requests for variances and to grant such
requests under certain conditions of hardship and may attach such reasonable
conditions and safeguards as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. There was no evidence submitted at the
public hearing held on May 8, 2003 to establish any unique physical
circumstances or conditions peculiar to the subject property which result in
unnecessary hardship to the Applicant.
4. Any hardship to the Applicant would be
from the circumstances or conditions generally created by the applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in the Commercial Highway (CH) District in
which the subject property is located since the proposed use is not permitted
by right or by conditional use.
5. There was no evidence submitted at the
time of the hearing to establish that there is no possibility that the property
can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance.
6. There was no evidence submitted at the
time of the hearing to establish that the authorization of a variance would be
necessary to enable the reasonable use of the subject property.
7. Any hardship alleged by the Applicant
has been created by the Applicant since its proposal for development of the
subject property as a truck maintenance facility in the Commercial Highway (CH)
District is not permitted by Article XII of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. Although the subject property was
previously used to perform maintenance and fueling of trucks there was no
evidence submitted at the time of the hearing to establish that the proposed
use would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in
which the subject property is located nor substantially or permanently impair
the appropriate use or development of adjacent property nor be detrimental to
the public welfare.
9. The proposed use variance does not
represent the least modification possible since the property can be put to
other permitted uses.
DECISION
In
view of the foregoing findings and conclusions and in view of the evidence and
testimony presented to the Zoning Hearing Board, the requested use variance
from Section 195-56 of the Zoning Ordinance is DENIED.
DATE: WEST
HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD
Linda
L. Turns
George
O. Kline
Beth
Carricato
Voted to approve:
Norma J. Gruber
Mary Ann Yahn