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.

TOWNSHIP HAVERFORD v. ZONING HEARING BOARD HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP ET AL. JOSEPH J. BURROWES AND HELEN BURROWES ET AL. (01/20/82)

decided: January 20, 1982.

TOWNSHIP OF HAVERFORD
v.
ZONING HEARING BOARD OF HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP ET AL. JOSEPH J. BURROWES AND HELEN BURROWES ET AL., APPELLANTS



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County in the case of Township of Haverford v. Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township, and Joseph J. Burrowes and Helen Burrowes; I. Howard Carson, D.D.S., and Geraldine Carson; Joseph G. Melvin and Virginia Melvin, No. 79-4704.

COUNSEL

John T. Mulligan, Lord & Mulligan, for appellants.

Harry F. Dunn, Jr., Dunn and Miller, for appellee.

Judges Mencer, Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Craig

[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 188]

We earlier remanded this zoning appeal to the Common Pleas Court of Delaware County and the Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township so that the board could make findings expressly affirming or negating whether the 14-tenant medical building allowed by the board through the granting of use and parking variances, on property in an R-4 multi-family residential zone, was "the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the regulation at issue." Section 912(5)

[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 189]

    of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).*fn1

Thereafter the board, without receiving any more testimony, proceeded to adopt additional findings and discussion purporting to support the variance decision, the court of common pleas again affirmed,*fn2 and we now have the case again.

The board's key new finding reads:

9. The improvement costs which result from the physical characteristics of the subject property are such that a building of the size proposed by the applicant is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property.

The board's discussion, after remand, also stated:

Based upon the severe physical limitations of the property which render most of it non-usable for any use, the small portion of the lot which will be covered by the proposed building and the economic constraints which are caused by these factors, the Board believes the proposed structure ...


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.