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.

LANDO v. SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT (02/02/72)

decided: February 2, 1972.

LANDO, ET UX.
v.
SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County in case of Mark R. Lando and Vivian J. Lando, his wife v. Springettsbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, No. 199 October Term, 1970.

COUNSEL

John F. Rauhauser, Jr., for appellants.

George M. Elsesser, Jr., with him Wogan, Elsesser & Yost, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 313]

This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County affirming the refusal of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (now Zoning Hearing Board) of Springettsbury Township (Board) to grant a variance applied for by Mark R. Lando and Vivian J. Lando, his wife (appellants), and refusing appellants' petition to take additional testimony concerning the matter.

Appellants (in their own words) "under threat of prosecution, instigated by the sole protestant, a former township official, without counsel and in compliance with the direction of the Township Zoning Officer, filed an application for a variance*fn1 to permit them to continue to maintain horses for their personal use upon their property which contains a substantial, well appointed four-stall stable with an attached tack room. The building . . . opens onto a fenced in tract of land of approximately 4 1/2 acres. Approximately twenty feet [distant] is an adjoining property similarly situated with a residence, barn and stable. Horses have been maintained there for more than 20 years past, to and including the present date. The sole protestant's property line was variously estimated at being 250-450 [feet] distant from petitioners' stable. Horse trails and bridle paths abound in the immediate area, one being only 200 yards from the property in question."

Appellants argue that none of the sections of the township ordinance "cited by the Zoning Officer, the counselors or the Court prohibits the use applied for

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 314]

    by the Appellants,"*fn2 and that "it may reasonably be argued that the keeping or stabling of horses in a building

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 315]

    designed solely for such use is 'an accessory use' (Sec. 401(6)) allowable and within the contemplation of the permitted uses of single family detached dwellings (401(1)) or agricultural or gardening uses (401(2)). Nor is such use prohibited by the purposes ...


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.