Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KAR KINGDOM v. ZONING HEARING BOARD MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP (03/25/85)

decided: March 25, 1985.

KAR KINGDOM, INC., APPELLANT
v.
ZONING HEARING BOARD OF MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of Kar Kingdom, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Middletown Township, No. 82-2651-13-1.

COUNSEL

Neil A. Morris, Sidkoff, Pincus, Greenberg & Green, P.C., for appellant.

Bernard D. Cullen, Brady, Lindner & Cullen, for appellee.

Judges Rogers and Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers. Judge Williams, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Rogers

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 365]

Kar Kingdom, Inc. has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County affirming

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 366]

    the actions of the Middletown Township Zoning Hearing Board (1) of rejecting what the appellant refers to as an appeal to the board from a citation issued by a district justice and (2) of refusing its application for a variance from the sign regulations of the township's zoning ordinance.

In August of 1981, Kar Kingdom opened a used car dealership at the intersection of Routes 1 and 213 in Middletown Township. Finding business to be slower than it had expected and believing that this was because persons driving on Route 1 passed the intersection before realizing that its used car lot was there, the appellant painted the words "USED CARS" in large letters across the sloping roof of its sales office. The painted letters extended over an area of 513 square feet. The pertinent township zoning regulations permitted a sign not exceeding 90.32 square feet.

On December 8, 1981, the township zoning officer sent, and on December 11, 1981 the appellant received, an order that it remove the sign, informing that the sign was placed without the required permit and that it exceeded the maximum allowed size. The order was not complied with.

On January 6, 1982, a district justice issued a citation upon complaint or information of the zoning officer charging the appellant with violating ordinance by erecting an oversize sign without permit.

On January 13, 1982, the appellant applied to the board for a variance "to permit a roof sign with an area of 513 square feet instead of the permitted 90.32 square feet."

On February 3, 1982, appellant's counsel wrote to the board to the effect that a marking on the variance application filed on January 13, 1982 was an expression of an appeal from the zoning officer's "decision ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.