Appeal, No. 66, April T., 1955, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County, March T., 1953, No. 37, in re appeal of Michael A. Boyle. Order affirmed.
Patrick M. O'Donnell, for appellants.
Gilbert E. Morcroft, with him Peter Cooper, for Material Service, Inc., appellee.
Before Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, and Woodside, JJ. (rhodes, P.j. and Ervin, J., absent).
[ 179 Pa. Super. Page 320]
This is another case in which an effort is being made to prevent the erection of a "shopping center" by attacking a zoning ordinance.
It is an appeal of one property owner from the dismissal by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County of the complaint of a number of property owners of the Borough of Crafton questioning the validity of that Borough's Ordinance No. 1070 passed February 10, 1953 which amends the zoning ordinance of 1926 by changing the classification of a certain tract from "Residential District D" to "Commercial District."
The complaint was filed pursuant to section 1010 of The General Borough Act of May 4, 1927, P.L. 519, as amended, (53 PS § 12900) which provides as follows:
"Complaint as to the legality of any ordinance or resolution may be made to the court of quarter sessions, upon entering into recognizance with sufficient security to prosecute the same with effect and for the payment of costs, by any person aggrieved, within thirty days after any ordinance or resolution takes effect, and the determination and order of the court thereof shall be conclusive. In cases of ordinances effecting annexation of territory or laying out streets over private lands, the court shall have jurisdiction to review the propriety as well as the legality of the ordinance."
[ 179 Pa. Super. Page 321]
For the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge ERVIN in Plum Township Annexation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 376, 116 A.2d 260 (1955), we must consider the case on a narrow certiorari. Thus we cannot consider the merits of the controversy, but only the jurisdiction of the court below and the regularity of the proceedings in it.
As the jurisdiction of the court below and the regularity of its proceedings are not questioned in this appeal its order must be affirmed.
Were we to treat the appeal as a broad certiorari we would, nevertheless, arrive at the same conclusion for the ...