| ICSC Legal Database - Cases | Monday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM |
| Citation: |
| Appeal of Crawford, 110 Pa. Cmwlth. 51, 531 A.2d 865 (1987). |
| Issue: |
| Whether appellants, who had used their home as a business for more than 20 years, qualified for a use variance |
| on the basis of hardship and/or estoppel? |
| Facts: |
| Beginning in 1965, Mr. Crawford operated a commercial caulking business out of his home. He employed as |
| many as nine people and utilized as many as six vans. Most of the equipment was stored in his garage, |
| although some of it was kept outside. There were no complaints about Crawford's business until 1972, but the |
| Township took no action on that single complaint. By 1982, however, there were numerous complaints made by |
| Crawford's neighbors because tractor-trailer trucks were delivering drums of caulk to his residence. Although Mr. |
| Crawford discontinued the deliveries to his home, the Township's zoning offices issued a cease-and-desist |
| order. Crawford appealed that order and, in addition, filed for a use variance on the basis of hardship and/or |
| estoppel. The Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board ruled that the issuance of the |
| cease-and-desist order was improper but denied Appellants' application for a use variance. Appellants appealed |
| the Board's ruling with respect to the use variance. The Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County affirmed the |
| Board's order without taking additional evidence. This appeal followed. |
| Holding: |
| Affirmed. The Court listed the following factors relevant in making the determination whether to grant a variance |
| by estoppel: (1) whether the municipality, which knew or should have known of the violation, failed to enforce the |
| law and actively acquiesced in the illegal use; (2) whether the landowner acted in good faith and relied |
| innocently upon the validity of the use throughout the proceedings; (3) whether the landowner has made |
| substantial expenditures in reliance upon his belief that his use was a permitted use; (4) whether the denial of |
| the variance would impose a substantial hardship on the applicant; and (5) whether there is sufficient evidence |
| to show that the use is a threat to the public health, safety or morals. Although the Court ruled that the |
| Township knew about the violation, the Court concluded that there was no "active" acquiescence, because there |
| was no municipal action upon which the |
| appellants could rely. In addition, Appellants' reliance on the Township's inaction was not reasonable because a |
| purchaser has a duty to check the property's zoning status. Finally, although Appellants spent money improving |
| their property in order to meet the needs of the business, such improvements (garage, shed, etc.) were |
| compatible with the zoning ordinance. Therefore, failure to grant the variance would not cause unnecessary |
| 00134 - Legal Update - Winter 1987 |
|
