Appeal, No. 4, May T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, Jan. T., 1962, No. 226, in case of Dale D. Anstine and Vivian D. Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of York Township. Order reversed.
Harry L. McNeal, Jr., with him G. Thomas Miller, and Bailey, Pearson, Miller & Bolton, for appellants.
Raymond L. Hovis, for appellee.
W. Byron Sorrell, John Breckinridge, and White, Sorrell & Williamson, and Bailey, Pearson & Bolton, for amicus curiae.
Frederick H. Bolton, Gerald T. Sajer, and Bailey, Pearson & Bolton, for amicus curiae.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE BENJAMIN R. JONES
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County which affirmed a decision of the York Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) refusing to grant to Dale D. Anstine and Vivian D. Anstine (appellants) a variance from the terms of the York Township Zoning Ordinance of 1960.
The appellants purchased approximately two acres of land in York Township on December 19, 1959. At the time of purchase, the land was improved with a two-story block building, formerly used as a chicken house and hog pen. On February 2, 1960, York Township (Township) adopted a zoning ordinance, effective February 15, 1960, designating the zone in which appellants' land was located as an "R-Residential" district. This ordinance prohibited the location of trailers*fn1 within an "R-Residential" district except in an authorized trailer camp.
On February 27, 1960, the appellants placed on their land a mobile-home or trailer and used it as a dwelling house. They applied to the Board on October 24, 1961 for a variance to continue to use and occupy the trailer or mobile-home as a residence and to improve it by placing it on a concrete foundation and adding to its exterior a patio, awning and other decorative features. A hearing was held and testimony was taken. The variance was refused because, according to the Board, appellants had failed to show that the ordinance would work an unnecessary hardship upon them. Appellants then appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of York County and that court, without taking testimony, sustained the refusal of the variance
and the validity of the ordinance. From that order this ...