Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

THOMAS MCCARRON v. ZONING HEARING BOARD BOROUGH LANSDALE (08/18/78)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: August 18, 1978.

THOMAS MCCARRON, LEGAL OWNER, AND CLOVER DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENTS CORP., EQUITABLE OWNER, APPELLANTS
v.
THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF LANSDALE, APPELLEE

Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of Thomas McCarron, Legal Owner, and Clover Diversified Investments Corp., Equitable Owner v. The Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Lansdale, No. 76-06737.

COUNSEL

J. Edmund Mullin, with him Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin & Maxwell, for appellants.

Richard W. Hollstein, with him Robert J. Kerns, and Landis, Williams & Kern, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 310]

Thomas McCarron and Clover Diversified Investments Corp. (Appellants) appeal the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Lansdale (Board) denying them a variance to construct a single-family home on each of two lots. The variance was necessary because each lot has a frontage of 55 feet,*fn1 while the applicable zoning requires 60 feet. The Board denied the variance on the grounds that any

[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 311]

    hardship had been created by Appellants*fn2 when they subdivided the property. The Board found as a fact that the undersized lot had been created in 1960 or 1961 when Appellants subdivided a larger property and that hence any hardship was of their own creation. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the decision of the Board was affirmed without the taking of any additional testimony.

After close examination of the record hereto, we reverse the Board and remand this case to it for the taking of testimony to support its legal and factual conclusion. Where the court below received no additional evidence, our review is limited to a determination of whether the Board abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Berger v. Board of Supervisors of Whitpain Township, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 386, 376 A.2d 296 (1977). As there is no discernible evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that Appellants had created their own hardship by subdividing their property, we must reverse the Board and remand the case to it for further consideration.

Accordingly, we

Order

And Now, this 18th day of August, 1978, the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Lansdale is reversed and this case is remanded to it for further consideration on the issue of whether Thomas McCarron and Clover Diversified Investments Corp., Appellants, created their own hardship when they subdivided their property.

Disposition

Reversed and remanded.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.