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 CASILIO AND SONS v. ZONING HEARING BOARD TOWNSHIP STROUD (10/20/76)

decided: October 20, 1976.

FRANK CASILIO AND SONS, A PARTNERSHIP
v.
THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF STROUD, COUNTY OF MONROE, STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA AND LE-RA-DO CORPORATION. FRANK CASILIO AND SONS, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of the Forty-Third Judicial District, Monroe County Branch, in case of Frank Casilio and Sons, a Partnership v. The Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Stroud, County of Monroe, State of Pennsylvania, and Le-Ra-Do Corporation, No. 292 June Term, 1972.

COUNSEL

Franklin H. Spitzer, with him Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, for appellant.

Richard E. Deetz, with him Scanlon, Lewis and Williamson, for appellee, Board.

John J. Pentz, Jr., with him Bensinger and Pentz, P.A., for appellee, Corporation.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 609]

Appellant filed an application to the Zoning Hearing Board for a permit to extend a non-conforming use. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the application stated:

"6. Permit to expand non-conforming use by virtue of a change to a mechanical processing plant to be erected, the manual processing plant to be razed.

"7. Applicant is entitled to expand a non-conforming use to accommodate the natural expansion of his business."

The application for the permit was denied, the Zoning Hearing Board's findings of fact included:

"(f) During the periods of small operation, Mr. John Brislin utilized a front end loader and a processing plant. The processing plant consisted of a screen five (5) feet by ten (10) feet or six (6) feet by ten (10) feet upon which material was dumped by the front end loader, and by force of gravity, the material was sized and sorted. This was a manual operation.

"(j) Applicant proposes to erect a mechanical processing plant thirty-four (34) feet by two hundred fifty (250) feet in size. The processing plant will involve conveyor belts, a washing system and crushing mechanisms. The proposed plant would be situated near a man-made excavation which would be ...


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.