Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1956, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, September 6, 1955, Application Docket No. 81996, in case of Lower Chichester Township v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order affirmed.
Philip Richman, with him Frank I. Ginsburg, for appellant.
Miles Warner, Assistant Counsel, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for appellee.
Samuel Graff Miller, with him Henry P. Sullivan and Vincent P. McDevitt, for intervenor, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 505]
On March 9, 1955, the Philadelphia Electric Company filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission an application stating that it proposed to construct a one-story building in the Township of Lower Chichester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, on a site located 915 feet from Laughead Avenue and 145 feet from the boundary line between Lower Chichester Township and Trainer Borough. The application set forth that the proposed building was necessary to house control equipment consisting of switchboards, relays, batteries, instruments, control facilities, telephones and other accessory equipment essential to the operation of an outdoor substation then being erected on an undeveloped tract of approximately twenty acres owned by the company at the intersection of Laughead
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 506]
Avenue and the township boundary line. It was further alleged that the substation in question was required to meet the increasing demand for electric service in the area between the City of Chester and the Pennsylvania-Delaware state line, and that it would provide for the transmission of additional bulk power capacity and energy into said area. Finally, the application averred that the proposed control house site was unavailable to the company under the provisions of a zoning ordinance of Lower Chichester Township, unless the commission should find that the proposed situation thereof was reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, and prayed that such a finding be made.
A protest against the application was filed by the township, denying that the proposed location of the control building was essential for the convenience and welfare of the public, and averring that the proposed substation was being located immediately adjacent to hundreds of residences in the township; that it would create dangers to the residents and their children in the nearby homes; that it was being located in a strictly residential area which had been zoned residential, whereas there was ample undeveloped and suitable land nearby zoned industrial; that it would deprive the township of valuable land from which it would receive substantial taxes; that it would deprive the township of land which it had planned to use for recreational purposes; and that the proposed facilities would create noise and other disturbances adversely affecting the public residing in that portion of the township. A motion to strike and dismiss the protest was denied without prejudice, and a full hearing was held.
Testimony on the part of the company was given by an assistant system ...