DETWILER V. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER SALFORD TOWNSHIP 596 A.2d 1156 (1991) CASE BRIEF

DETWILER V. ZONING HEARING BOARD OF LOWER SALFORD TOWNSHIP

596 A.2d 1156 (1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Detwiler (P) appealed an order which affirmed the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board (D), granting the Millers a variance for the construction of a house.

FACTS: The Millers own a lot of approximately 2.8 acres and would like to construct a house thereon. The zoning ordinance requires that both the front and rear yards must be at least seventy-five feet deep and that the side yards must be at least forty feet wide. The Millers filed an application with D in which they requested a variance from the seventy-five-foot rear yard requirement so that they could build a house on their lot. Millers argued that the imposition of the minimum front and rear yard setback provisions completely negates any practical residential development because of the absence of any appreciable 'building envelope' within which a house of even the leanest proportions might be built. Millers requested a reduction of the rear yard requirement from seventy-five feet to forty feet. Ps live directly across the street from the Millers' lot. Ps challenged the Millers' request for a variance on the ground that it would adversely impact their property, which, they contend, 'serves as an asset to the community because of its historic value.' D granted the Millers' request for a variance, concluding that without the grant of a variance, the Millers' lot 'could quite easily suffer the fate of terminal sterility.' D concluded that, in granting the Millers a variance, 'there would appear to be no discernible adverse impact or consequence upon neighboring properties.' On appeal, the trial court, without taking any additional evidence, affirmed the decision of D. The trial court discussed each of the five requirements that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance under Section 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and then concluded that the Millers' request satisfied each requirement. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner