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.

SWADE v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT. (03/24/58)

March 24, 1958

SWADE, APPELLANT,
v.
SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.



Appeal, No. 1, Jan. T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, June T., 1956, No. 16, in case of Edward Swade v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Springfield Township. Order affirmed; reargument refused May 9, 1958.

COUNSEL

William J. Woolston, with him Fox, Biffer & Honeyman, for appellant.

John E. Landis, with him David E. Groshens, for appellee.

Before Jones, C.j., Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Jones and Cohen, JJ.

[ 392 Pa. Page 270]

OPINION PER CURIAM

The order of the Court below is affirmed on excerpts from the able opinion of President Judge HAROLD G. KNIGHT:

"The facts are fully set forth in the findings of the Board of Adjustment and the hearing judge and it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

"It is hardly open to dispute that the appellant is conducting a prohibited business enterprise in a residential zone. He uses the barn on the premises as the headquarters of the business of repairing and maintaining pumps, he has a telephone in the office in the barn and maintains a full time secretary there, he has an inventory of $20,000 in parts and has two machines which he uses in his business set up in the barn.

"The Board of Adjustment, as well as the hearing judge, found as a fact that the business carried on by the appellant did not adversely affect the health, safety, or morals of the public and counsel for the appellant, before the hearing judge, the Court en banc, and in his brief contends:

"1. That since the business of the appellant has no reasonable relationship to the public health, safety and morals, the Board of Adjustment had no discretion in the matter and should have granted the variance.

"2. That since the appellant's business had no reasonable relationship to the public health, safety or morals, the Zoning ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to said business for it deprived appellant of his property without due process of law.

"We cannot agree with either of these contentions. The very essence of Zoning is the designation of certain areas for different use purposes. Business may not encroach on residential areas except through the medium of a special exception or variance. ...


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.