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.

J. RICHARD FRETZ (FRANK CHARLES NICHOLAS v. BOARD SUPERVISORS BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP (10/26/83)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: October 26, 1983.

J. RICHARD FRETZ (FRANK CHARLES NICHOLAS, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST), APPELLANT
v.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP, APPELLEE

Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of J. Richard Fretz v. Board of Supervisors of Bedminster Township, No. 76-4001-13-5.

COUNSEL

Richard P. McBride, with him Edward F. Murphy, McBride, Murphy & Sudfeld, for appellant.

Mary C. Eberle, with her Victor S. Jaczun, Jaczun, Grabowski & Leonard, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Doyle. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 85]

J. Richard Fretz appeals a Bucks County Common Pleas Court order affirming the Bedminster Township Board of Supervisors' order denying his curative amendment application. We affirm.

Fretz, the then-legal owner of two contiguous parcels of land totaling 93.5 acres,*fn1 filed a curative amendment application with the township's board of supervisors,*fn2 alleging that the township's zoning ordinance tacitly precluded a legitimate form of residential use he wanted to make of his property -- a mobile home park. The board rejected the application, concluding that the zoning ordinance did not preclude mobile home park development. The common pleas court affirmed, but on the basis that the township had an ordinance amendment pending which explicitly provided for mobile home park uses, and did not reach the question of whether the ordinance excluded the use.

Fretz now contends that the township's zoning ordinance unconstitutionally excludes mobile home parks because it makes no specific provision for them. We disagree. As the township points out, the ordinance

[ 78 Pa. Commw. Page 86]

    contains a general provision for the establishment of planned residential developments and also specific provisions setting standards for mobile home park developments. Under such circumstances, the mere fact that a zoning ordinance does not contain specific provision for mobile home park developments cannot be a basis for finding an unconstitutional exclusion of them. Colonial Park for Mobile Homes, Inc. v. New Britain Township, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 459, 408 A.2d 1160 (1979).*fn3

Order

The Bucks County Common Pleas Court order in No. 76-4001-13-5, dated January 27, 1981, is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


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.