Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LINDQUIST APPEAL (05/22/50)

May 22, 1950

LINDQUIST APPEAL


Appeals, Nos. 124 to 128, inclusive, Jan. T., 1950, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, June T., 1949, No. 12, in Appeal of Adolph L. Lindquist from Decision of Board of Adjustment of Springfield Township. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Samuel H. High, Jr., with him High, Swartz, Flynn & Roberts, for intervenors, appellants.

David E. Groshens and Elvin R. Souder, for Springfield Township and Board of Adjustment, appellants.

Thomas B. Moreland Porter, Jr., for appellee.

Before Drew, C.j., Stern, Stearne, Jones and Bell, JJ.

Author: Stearne

[ 364 Pa. Page 562]

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ALLEN M. STEARNE

The appellants -- intervenors -- appeal from the decree of the court of common pleas of Montgomery County setting aside the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Springfield Township wherein the board refused to grant a variance from the terms and provisions of the Springfield Township Zoning Ordinance of 1940.

The appellee, Adolph Luther Lindquist, is the equitable owner of a lot and building situate on the northeasterly corner of Bethlehem Pike and Haws Lane in Springfield Township. He purchased the property with the intent to install and operate therein bowling alleys. At the time appellee purchased the building it was being used as an automobile sales agency, repair and body and

[ 364 Pa. Page 563]

    paint shop. It had previously been used as a knitting mill, packaging plant and auto agency but was vacant for extended periods. The building is a large, well-built brick and hollow tile and cement structure containing approximately seven thousand square feet of usable floor space. Appellants applied to the board for a variance, which was refused.

The township zoning ordinance establishes Business I and Business II districts and outlines permitted uses in each district. The building in question is located in a Business I district. A bowling alley is not expressly authorized therein by way of special exception or otherwise. The use of a bowling alley is specifically authorized by the ordinance in a Business II district if an exception is granted by the Board. Section 1306 (2) of the ordinance prohibits the board from authorizing a use not expressly permitted in the district in which the property is located.

The zoning board in refusing the variance ruled, and the present appellants rely upon such ruling, that it was without authority to grant a variance; that the township ordinance vested such power only in the township commissioners; that the limit of the board's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.