Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County in case of Upper Leacock Township Supervisors v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Leacock Township and Bettie Lou Succa, Intervenor, Trust Book 43, Page 206.
Louis J. Farina, with him May, Grove, Stork & Blakinger, for appellant.
John L. Sampson, with him Hassel, Yost & Sorrentino, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 452]
Bettie Lou Succa (Appellant) has appealed an order of the Court of Common Pleas which reversed
[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 453]
the order of the Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Leacock Township (Board) and denied her application for a variance.
In February, 1970, Appellant leased certain premises containing a barn which she renovated and used as a gift shop. In May, 1970, Upper Leacock Township (Township) enacted a zoning ordinance which classified Appellant's leased premises as residential (R-2). The ordinance also provided for a minimum lot width of 75 feet in the district. In June, 1971, Appellant entered into an agreement with the owner of the land on which the barn was located whereby the owner was to sell to Appellant the portion of the land containing the gift shop.
The agreement provided that Appellant's lot would be sixty (60) feet wide. The owner subsequently sold the entire tract, including the portion which was the subject of Appellant's agreement of sale, to the local fire company subject to Appellant's outstanding agreement of sale.
Appellant applied to the Board for a variance from the 75-foot minimum lot width requirement in order that she could subdivide her portion of land from the larger portion sold to the fire company. On June 30, 1975, the Board granted the variance. The written decision of the Board was issued July 25, 1975. Township appealed on August 19, 1975. Appellant moved to quash the appeal as being untimely filed. The court below denied the motion to quash and reversed the Board's decision.
Appellant urges several grounds for reversal.
First, Appellant contends that the time from which Township's appeal period began was June 30, 1975, the last day of the hearing and the day on which the Board announced its vote. Therefore, Appellant contends that ...