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.

FRANK N. PYLE v. HARMAR TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD (06/18/75)

decided: June 18, 1975.

FRANK N. PYLE, APPELLANT
v.
HARMAR TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Frank N. Pyle v. Board of Supervisors of Harmar Township, No. S.A. 384 of 1973.

COUNSEL

John B. Nicklas, Jr., with him, Alfred C. Maiello, and McCrady, Nicklas, McCrady & Maiello, for appellant.

John M. Means, for appellee.

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

Author: Blatt

[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 5]

This is an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which in an opinion dated July 22, 1974 dismissed Frank N. Pyle's appeal from a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board (board) of Harmar Township (Township).

[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 6]

On November 14, 1973 Mr. Pyle, the owner of a 64.96 acre tract in the Township, submitted to the board a challenge to the validity of the Township zoning ordinance under Sections 910 and 1004 of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. ยงยง 10910 and 11004. On March 4, 1974 the board after holding a hearing issued its decision rejecting the landowner's challenge and denying him zoning approval. The lower court affirmed after taking additional evidence. Hence Pyle presently appeals to this Court.

Our scope of review here in a zoning case where the court below took additional evidence is to determine whether the lower court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. Camp Hill Development Co., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 519, 319 A.2d 197 (1974).

Pyle intends to develop the subject tract as a mobile home park. The tract is located almost entirely in an R-1 district although a small portion of it is located in an R-2 district. Section 13 of the ordinance permits mobile home parks as a conditional use in R-1 and R-2 districts according to the following "Development Standards" relating to density and setbacks:

"a. Minimum size of site: Ten (10) contiguous acres;

"b. Minimum gross site area per mobile home: Six (6) per acre;*fn1

"c. Minimum setbacks from site property line to side or rear of closest mobile ...


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.