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.

ROBERT E. ANDERSON AND DOROTHY A. ANDERSON v. BOARD SUPERVISORS PRICE TOWNSHIP (12/22/81)

decided: December 22, 1981.

ROBERT E. ANDERSON AND DOROTHY A. ANDERSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PRICE TOWNSHIP, MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of the 43rd Judicial District, Monroe County Branch, in the case of Robert E. Anderson and Dorothy A. Anderson, his wife v. Board of Supervisors of Price Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, No. 199 October Term, 1978.

COUNSEL

David W. Knauer, Robinson, Hoffner & Billick, for appellants.

Kennard Lewis, Scanlon, Lewis & Williamson, for appellee.

Marc R. Wolfe, Mervine, Brown, Newman, Williams and Mishkin, P.C., for intervenor.

Judges Williams, Jr., MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.

Author: Williams

[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 336]

In this appeal from the denial of a subdivision application, landowners Robert and Dorothy Anderson ask this Court to establish both the applicability of Section 508(2) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC),*fn1 and the relevance of deed restrictions to the adverse decision of the Board of Supervisors of Price Township (Board).

The Andersons own a tract in a subdivision composed entirely of three-acre lots. When the Board denied them permission to further subdivide their land into two 1 1/2 acre plots, the Andersons appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Board's decision. In assigning error to the opinions below, the landowners allege (1) that the decision of the Board does not comply with the specificity requirements of Section 508(2)*fn2 of the MPC, and (2) that the Board incorrectly denied approval of the application, not because it contravened any specific provisions of the township's zoning or subdivision ordinance, but because it violated restrictions in the deed.

Our scope of review, when the common pleas court has received no evidence, is limited to ascertainment of whether the Board abused its discretion or committed

[ 63 Pa. Commw. Page 337]

    an error of law. Horst v. Derry Township Board of Supervisors, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 556, 347 A.2d 507 (1975). Our examination of this exiguous*fn3 record leads us to reverse the decision below.

In its opinion, the Board refers to only two provisions of the Price Township Subdivision Ordinance -- Article 1, Section 300, entitled "Purpose",*fn4 and Article 4, "Design Standards and Required Improvements," which encompasses

     conditions favorable to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens and for the harmonious development of the Township . . . Nearby Developments must be coordinated with existing nearby developments or neighborhoods so that that ...


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.