Without taking additional evidence, the trial court affirmed the ZHB, adding that Lantos' constitutional challenge did not establish that the ordinances were arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare.
The ZHB also concluded that Lantos' challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinances was meritless because the ordinances had a "rational relationship to the legitimate purpose of zoning." (ZHB Conclusion of Law, 4). The ZHB denied Lantos' appeal because Lantos failed to show that the property was a lawful non-conforming use in existence prior to the enactment of the student housing ordinances. Lantos appealed to the ZHB, arguing that he was entitled to the student housing licenses under the non-conforming use doctrine because the property had been previously rented and used as student housing. Lantos applied for student housing licenses which the Director of Codes Enforcements refused because Lantos' property did not meet the requirements of the student housing ordinances. Pursuant to these ordinances, single family residences, such as those owned by Lantos, could be used for student housing by special exception, provided certain physical requirements such as spacing, minimum square footage and off-street parking, were satisfied. 2064, (collectively, student housing ordinances). In 1989, Haverford Township enacted housing ordinance No. Among these tenants have been numerous students. The two houses have been rented continuously from the time Lantos acquired the property. In 1979, Lantos purchased a 13,500 square foot parcel at 812-814 Penn Street in Haverford Township, zoned R-6 residential.
Lantos appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County that affirmed the Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township's (ZHB) denial of Lantos' request for student housing licenses.
0 kommentar(er)
