Mortimer v. New Britain Township Zoning Hearing Board
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
93 A.3d 936 (2014)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Edward Mortimer (plaintiff) owned land in New Britain Township, Pennsylvania. The land was zoned as suburban residential under the New Britain Township zoning ordinance. Mortimer constructed a house and a detached garage on the property. Years later, Mortimer made improvements on the second floor of the garage without obtaining the required building permits. Mortimer installed in the garage a bedroom, office, kitchen, living room, dining room, bathroom, laundry room, plumbing, heating, and other utilities. Mortimer intended for the apartment to be used as a residence for his niece. The township issued Mortimer a violation notice informing him that because he did not obtain the necessary building permits, the apartment was illegally constructed. The township also informed Mortimer that the garage apartment constituted an accessory dwelling and was prohibited in the suburban-residential zoning district. Mortimer submitted an application to the New Britain Township Zoning Hearing Board (the ZHB) (defendant) requesting an interpretation of the zoning ordinance to permit an accessory dwelling use in a detached garage, a variance from the ordinance to permit such use, or an interpretation that connecting the garage to the house would bring it into compliance with the ordinance. After a hearing, the ZHB denied Mortimer’s application. Mortimer appealed the ZHB’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leadbetter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.