Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, in case of Daniel R. Tantlinger, Ronald O. Tantlinger and Ida P. Tantlinger v. Zoning Hearing Board of South Union Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania, No. 934 of 1984 G.D.
Ralph C. Warman, for appellants.
Simon B. John, for appellee.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 74]
The Tantlingers, as landowners, appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County which affirmed the South Union Township Zoning Hearing Board's refusal to permit the replacement of a mobilehome with a modular home, as an expansion or continuation of a nonconforming use, or pursuant to a variance. We affirm.
The landowners own two single-family residences on a lot located in a R-1 residential zone. One dwelling is a
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 75]
conventional house, and the other dwelling is a mobilehome. The lot size is less than 15,000 square feet. The South Union Township Zoning Ordinance prohibits mobilehomes in a R-1 residential zone; the validity of the prohibition has not been attacked. The ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 22,500 square feet for two single-family residences located on one lot in a R-1 residential zone. Because both dwellings predated the zoning ordinance, the mobilehome is a legal nonconforming use and the lot size of the two single-family dwellings constitutes a legal nonconformity as to area.
The landowners, to accommodate an increase in the size of their family, seek permission to construct a modular home in place of the mobilehome. A modular home is a conforming use in a R-1 residential zone. The zoning hearing board, after a hearing, denied the request on the ground that the replacement of the mobilehome with a modular home did not constitute a valid expansion or continuation of the legal nonconforming use, and because no variance was warranted as to the minimum area nonconformity. Trial Judge Adams, after a de novo hearing, affirmed the decision of the zoning hearing board. On appeal, the landowners do not pursue the variance question, and we therefore will not consider it.
The landowners characterize the issue on appeal as involving the natural expansion of a nonconforming use, the mobilehome. However, this court's analysis indicates that this case actually involves the replacement of the mobilehome nonconforming use with a conforming use, a modular home, remaining in nonconformity as to the lot area requirement.
Even if this court were to accept the landowners' characterization of the issue as whether the replacement of the nonconforming mobilehome with a modular home is allowable as a natural expansion and modernization of ...