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.

MILL VALLEY ASSOCIATES v. ZONING HEARING BOARD TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP AND TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP BOARD SUPERVISORS (05/30/89)

decided: May 30, 1989.

MILL VALLEY ASSOCIATES, APPELLANT,
v.
ZONING HEARING BOARD OF TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP AND TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, APPELLEES



Appeal from CHESTER County, COMMON PLEAS Court, HONORABLE CHARLES B. SMITH, Judge.

COUNSEL

John C. Snyder, Sean A. O'Neill, and Lentz, Cantor, Kilgore & Massey, Ltd., Paoli, for appellant.

John S. Halstead, West Chester, for appellees.

Ronald C. Nagle, Buckley, Nagle, Gentrey, McGuire & Morris, West Chester, for Tredyffrin Bd. of Supervisors.

Craig and Judge Barry, JJ., and Narick, Senior Judge.

Author: Barry

[ 126 Pa. Commw. Page 342]

OPINION

Mill Valley Associates (Mill Valley) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County which affirmed a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Tredyffrin Township (ZHB) denying its constitutional challenge to the R-1/2 minimum lot size requirement of the Tredyffrin Township Zoning Ordinance (ordinance). We reverse.

Mill Valley, an equitable owner of seventy-four acres of land, sought to develop its tract to be comprised of 30,000 square foot lots in an R-1/2 district which has a minimum lot size requirement of one hundred thousand square feet. This requirement is the approximate equivalent of 2 1/3 acres. Mill Valley filed a challenge to the validity of Section 602.A of the ordinance which sets forth the R-1/2 minimum lot size requirement. Mill Valley challenges the ordinance on the basis that the minimum lot size requirement is not a legitimate exercise of police power, is unreasonably restrictive and lacks any purpose reasonably related to the protection of the public health, safety or welfare. We note that Mill Valley has not challenged the constitutionally of the ordinance on the basis that it is exclusionary.

On February 3, 1987, following sixteen hearings which were held over the course of eighteen months, the ZHB voted unanimously to deny Mill Valley's challenge. Mill

[ 126 Pa. Commw. Page 343]

Valley appealed to the trial court which affirmed the ZHB's decision. Mill Valley now appeals to this Court.

Where, as here, the trial court has not taken additional evidence our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the ZHB committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law. Valley View Civic Association v. ...


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.