Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of Harry D. Kratz v. Skippack Township and The Board of Supervisors of Skippack Township, No. 73-13831.
Alan E. Boroff, with him Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone, Craig & Garrity, for appellant.
Paul W. Callahan, with him Fox, Differ, Callahan & Ulrich, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and Blatt. Judge Mencer did not participate. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 356]
This is an appeal by Skippack Township (Township) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County dated June 13, 1974, which sustained an appeal of Harry D. Kratz (Kratz), and directed the
[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 357]
Township to issue building permits subject to certain conditions. The order also dismissed a petition to remand filed by the Township.
Kratz was the owner of 35 acres of land located in an "R-2 Residential" district of the Township. On July 2, 1973, Kratz submitted an application to the governing body of the Township challenging the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance on the ground that it did not contain any provisions for multiple-family dwelling uses. The application contained a proposed curative amendment and site plans proposing the construction of 280 townhouse units, two stories in height, with no more than eight dwelling units in a row, to be constructed over a five-year period.
On the date of the Kratz application the zoning ordinance provided for only two residential districts, R-1, which permitted only detached single-family dwellings on lots of at least 60,000 square feet, and R-2, which permitted only detached single-family dwellings on lots of at least 30,000 square feet. There were no other provisions for residential use anywhere in the Township.
In compliance with the request of the Kratz application, a hearing was set for September 13, 1973,*fn1 and duly advertised. At the hearing Kratz presented testimony and evidence in support of his application, and the Township presented no formal evidence. It is pertinent to note at this point that on the day before the hearing the Montgomery County Planning Commission sent a letter to the Township in reaction to the Kratz application which recommended that amendments be made to the Township's zoning ordinance. It is likewise pertinent to note that on September 5, 1973, the Township's Planning Commission issued a resolution, as a result of the Kratz application, setting forth a general agreement with the
[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 358]
Kratz proposed curative amendment, but noting specific modifications for the ...