Appeal, No. 193, Jan. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 62-6611, in case of Harry F. Kern and Martha M. Kern, his wife, Salvatore J. Puleo et al. v. Board of Adjustment of Plymouth Township. Order affirmed.
Alphonso Santangelo, for appellants.
Victor J. Roberts, with him High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel, for appellee.
Joseph j. McGrory, with him A. Benjamin Scirica, Township Solicitor, for township, appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS
The Zoning Board of Adjustment of Plymouth Township granted a special exception, subject to 13 restrictions, for the construction of six apartment buildings containing 98 units in a Residential Special District.*fn1 The land to be used is a 6-1/2 acre triangular shaped parcel bounded by Sandy Hill Road and Germantown Pike, two of the busiest thoroughfares in the township, and Hallowell Road, with frontages of 1230 feet, 976 feet and 776 feet respectively. It is from the court's affirmance of the board's action, without taking additional testimony, that certain property owners in the vicinity, protestants before the board, take this appeal.
The zoning ordinance ( § 900) provides that in Residential Special Districts, a "building may be erected or used, and a lot may be used or occupied, for ... the following purposes .... B. When authorized as a special exception, an apartment house or apartment hotel ...." The ordinance in § 2102 B sets forth the standards to be applied by board in granting special exceptions.
In Residential Special Districts, the ordinance by § 902 establishes the minimum lot area and width requirements, as well as the front, side and rear yard
depths and widths. It likewise limits the building coverage "not to exceed twenty-five (25) percent" of the lot.
Appellants' chief complaint is that the plot plan submitted with the application is "inaccurate, incomplete, vague and misleading" and "fails to meet the requirements" of the zoning ordinance and that the board "manifestly abused its discretion" in granting the exception. The effect of appellants' argument is to require of the plot plan the particularity of a building permit. While it may perhaps be desirable and helpful to have the plan meet that standard of dimensional detail,*fn2 surely no party in interest is misled or prejudiced by a plan which discloses the essential dimensions of the area to be used and the basic locations of the structures and other facilities to be constructed. This is especially ...