CC_Minutes_2007_0129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

546 A.2d 755 http://web2.westlaw.comiresultldocumenttext.aspx?docsample=Fals. " special use. As we have stated, "[A] special exception Is not *l68 an exception to the zoning ordinance but is a use which is permitted unless, under the circumstances, such use would adversely affect the community...." Heck v. Zonlna Hearlna Board of Harvev's Lake Borouah, 39 Pa.Commonwealth ct. 570. 575. 397 A.2d 15. 18 (1979) . Appellant does not allege on appeal that the use would adversely affect the community, Rather, she argues that the proposed uses are not "hospitals" because the building will be used for administrative purposes and not for housing patients. We need say no more than the trial court In this regard. "Hospital offices are just as much a hospital as patient rooms." (Opinion of trial court, 10/1/87, p. 3). Finally, appellant challenges the Board's grant of a variance to 306 South Wilbur Avenue on a number of grounds. Before proceeding upon her challenges, a factual narration Is required. All three of the properties were formerly owned by the Sayre Motel. The property at 306 South Wilbur Avenue has been used as a banquet facility for almost nine years. Such use was nonconforming. The property Is bordered on three sides by the R/M district; the property to the south Is the only one In the R/S district, When the hospital sought permission to remove the motel building on Its land to construct a parking lot to the rear of 306 South Wilbur Avenue, the Board granted the special use on the condition that 306 South Wilbur Avenue was left Intact, "screening" the parking lot for the single family residences across the street. Further, testimony was presented that Sayre Borough was In the process of amending Its zoning ordinance to classify the area which Included 306 South Wilbur Avenue as a hospital zone. Richard Ault, the hospital's Vice President for Administration, testified that the property would be used for offices for approximately seven employees who would work from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday *l69 through Friday. He testified that those employees would use the employee parking lot. The hospital's administration planned no structural changes to the building, keeping Its residential facade intact. The only outside light would be the porch light. Ault testified that while deliveries would be **758 made to the buildIng, the delivery trucks could park In a driveway on the property, He testified that because of the prior use as a banquet hall, extensive interior upgrading would be required to convert the property to a single family residence and that such costs would probably make the rent prohibitive. Upon considering all of the testimony, the Board granted the variance. It concluded that the zoning ordinance created an unnecessary hardship because 306 South Wilbur Avenue was unique and found that granting the variance would not be contrary to the public Interest. The Board also concluded that the portion of Section 6.501 of the zoning ordinance which penmltted variances only for uses permitted within the zoning district was unconstitutional. Appellant, of course, challenges all of these findings and conclusions. ill ~ ill ~ Appellant first argues that both the Board and the court erred In concluding that the ordinance was unconstitutional In prohibiting use variances. We do not believe this conclusion need be reviewed, It Is well settled that a court should not decide a constitutional question if the case can be decided on nonconstltutlonal grounds. Lattanzio v. Unemolovment Comoensatlon Board of Review. 461 Pa. 392. 336 A.2d 595 (1975) . Furthermore, we can affirm a correct decision of a tribunal below even If the reasoning of that body was erroneous. Rhoads v. Lancaster Park/na Author/tv. 103 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303. 520 A.2d 122 (1987) . ill ~ ll!!l ~ Section 912(2) of the MPC empowers a board to grant variances where, inter alia, It Is necessary to enable *l70 a reasonable use of the property. 53 P,S. q 10912(2). In this case, the permitted special uses are the conversion of a single family residence to a two family residence, churches, Sunday schools and other places of worship, public schools, parks, playgrounds and firehouses. Schedule 1 of the ordinance. As none of these uses are reasonable for the hospital, strict application of Section 6.501 of the ordinance would be Inconsistent with the MPC. For that reason, we believe the questioned portion of that section was properly disregarded In this case. ~ illl Appellant next argues that the hospital failed to prove the requisite unnecessary hardship 6of8 12/29/2006 4: 56 PM