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.

NEIGHBORS KEINERS LANE INDIVIDUALS ROSE PALMER-PHELPS v. TOWNSHIP ROBINSON AND DANIEL AND PATRICIA RENZIEHAUSEN (11/29/88)

decided: November 29, 1988.

THE NEIGHBORS OF KEINERS LANE; INDIVIDUALS: ROSE PALMER-PHELPS, EDNA KASTEN, JAN AND KATHY KASPRICK, APPELLANTS
v.
THE TOWNSHIP OF ROBINSON AND DANIEL AND PATRICIA RENZIEHAUSEN, APPELLEES. DANIEL RENZIEHAUSEN, APPELLANT V. THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, APPELLEE



Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Neighbors of Keiners Lane; Individuals, Rose Palmer, William and Karen Caughie and Kathy and Jan Kasprick v. The Zoning Hearing Board of The Township of Robinson, No. GD 86-14137.

COUNSEL

Rose Palmer-Phelps, appellant, for Neighbors of Keiners Lane, Rose Palmer-Phelps, Edna Kasten and Jan and Kathy Kasprick.

Michael F. Fives, Conway & Fives, for appellants/appellee, Daniel and Patricia Renziehausen.

John L. Butya, for appellee, The Zoning Hearing Board of Robinson Township.

Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig. Judge MacPhail did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Craig

[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 348]

The Neighbors of Keiners Lane (Neighbors)*fn1 and Daniel and Patricia Renziehausen appeal an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County affirming a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Robinson Township that interpreted Article VII, Section 701(A) of the Township Zoning Ordinance to include as a permitted use the proposed construction of a building for the storage and repair of trucks used in the Renziehausens' garbage hauling business.

The questions for review are whether the Renziehausens' proposed use is permitted and whether the board inappropriately placed conditions on that use. We affirm.

At issue in this dispute is the interpretation of Article VII, Section 701(A) of the township's zoning ordinance:

SECTION 701 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT II.

Within the Light Industrial District, the following regulations apply:

A. PERMITTED USES. A light industrial use is one which creates a minimum amount of nuisance outside the plant; is conducted entirely within the enclosed buildings, does not use the open area around such buildings for storage of raw materials or manufactured products unless screened from public view or for any other industrial purpose other than transporting goods ...


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.