State upholds CF zoning decision
 

By: Richard Schwartzman

Pennsylvania Superior Court on May 17 upheld a 2005 Chadds Ford Township Zoning Hearing Board decision that stopped a property on Oakland Road from being used as an apartment.

"This is a win for the township," said Supervisors' Chairman Deborah Love D'Elia. "I'm excited that we can get the property back to its appropriate zoning use. It's significant because it empowers the township to control its zoning. And it's a big win when others attempt to break our zoning."

Lisa Goodman, the daughter of the property owner, said the family just received the decision last week and wants to determine the best course of action.

"We're looking at the opinion and considering our options, including working with the township in resolving the situation in a manner acceptable to all parties," Goodman said.

The Zoning Hearing Board ruled July 2005 in a 3-0 decision that the property at 2 Oakland Road could no longer be used as a multi family dwelling. That decision came despite the fact that the township had not enforced the zoning code against such use at the site in more than 20 years.

Property owner David Goodman began using the property as a dormitory in 1979 when he and his wife operated Wonderland Farms, a horse breeding farm and school for stable and breeding management.
In 1984 they began using the site as an apartment. But the property is in the R-1 zoning district where apartment use is prohibited without special exception.

As reported when the zoning board rendered its decision two years ago, Chairman Ed Wandersee said, "I don't question Dr. Goodman's good faith [but after going through] a flurry of paperwork I don't find a reference or request for a variance or special exception. Dr. Goodman should have gotten something in writing [from past supervisors] saying there was no objection to apartments."

He said at the time that the board had to balance Goodman's good faith with his confusion resulting from what Wandersee termed "indifference" of past supervisors in enforcing township code.

Goodman's attorney, Harry Dunn, called the decision "terrible" and filed an appeal in Delaware County court. The county court affirmed the township's position so the case then went to the state.
During a June 15, 2005 hearing session, Dunn presented a series of facts that led his client to believe that apartment use was allowed. Among those facts were that a former code enforcement officer signed off on building plans and issued certificates of occupancy following construction of an addition, and that the current code enforcement officer, Richard Jensen, knew about the apartments in 1994.

There was no citation issued until November 2004. Jensen testified that he thought the problem would "go away" once Goodman sold off a piece of the property.

Dunn argued at the time of the zoning board hearing that even if the certificates of occupancy were issued improperly, his client already had a vested right in using the property as an apartment house.
He said Goodman paid due diligence to everything asked of him by the township and went to the appropriate bodies, supervisors and code enforcement officer and that he also showed "good faith" by spending unrecoverable fees to pay for all required permits.