Centre Lime Stone v. Spring TWN

10 Citing cases

  1. Hanson Aggregates v. College Tp. Council

    911 A.2d 592 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that " `fair share' criterion . . . is not the primary focus in a `reasonableness' analysis under Section 603 of the MPC"

    "Fair share" principles are only applicable in cases where the zoning exclusion is partial, Appeal of Harbucks, Inc., 126 Pa.Cmwlth. 591, 560 A.2d 851 (1989), and require a determination of whether the ordinance reflects a balanced and weighted consideration of the many factors bearing upon local and regional needs. Centre Lime Stone Co., Inc. v. Spring Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth.2001). Under a "fair share" analysis, the percentage of land zoned for the proposed use is relevant and must be considered in relation to the total undeveloped land in the community. Id. Where the amount of land zoned for the proposed use is disproportionately small in relation to the total area of undeveloped land, the ordinance will be deemed exclusionary.

  2. Union Township v. Ethan Michael

    979 A.2d 431 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2009)   Cited 8 times

    A conclusion that the Board abused its discretion may be reached only if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Centre Lime and Stone Company, Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 740, 798 A.2d 1291 (2002). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  3. Common. Land Inv. v. Board of Sup.

    No. 2019 C.D. 2008 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jul. 17, 2009)

    A conclusion that the Board abused its discretion may be reached only if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Centre Lime and Stone Company, Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 740, 798 A.2d 1291 (2002). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  4. Scrub v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment

    908 A.2d 967 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    In a "de facto challenge . . . the landowner alleges that the ordinance on its face permits the proposed use, but does so under such conditions that the use cannot in fact be accomplished." Centre Lime and Stone Co., Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105, 1111 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). Essentially, Preston's argument is that it was precluded from removing an existing sign in order to erect a new sign only because Preston was not in the sign business.

  5. Morris v. South Coventry Tp. Bd.

    898 A.2d 1213 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    In a case such as this, where the trial court takes no additional evidence, our standard of review is limited to determining whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the Board has abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Centre Lime and Stone Co., Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001). I.

  6. In re Brandywine Realty Trust

    857 A.2d 714 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2004)   Cited 7 times

    The holding in Bailey does not tell us that we are to defer to a ZHB where it interprets an ordinance, but only that deference will be given to a ZHB's interpretation of administrative rules as long as the administrative body had the power to promulgate rules and the promulgation of the specific rule is within its power. The Landowners argue that the trial court properly applied the standard of determining whether the ZHB committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law, Centre Lime and Stone Co., Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105, 1108, n. 2 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 740, 798 A.2d 1291 (2002). "In a land use appeal, where a full and complete record was made before the Board and the trial court took no additional evidence, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law."

  7. Macioce v. Zoning Hearing Bd.

    850 A.2d 882 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2004)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that a zoning ordinance was not de facto exclusionary based only on the fact that it permitted wireless telecommunications towers on only one percent of borough land

    Trial Court Opinion at 4.But cf. Centre Lime and Stone Co., Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105, 1111 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 740, 798 A.2d 1291 (2002) ("[I]f the zoning exclusion is partial, as in this case, the percentage of community land available under the ordinance for the proposed use becomes relevant. This percentage must be considered in light of the total amount of undeveloped land in the community.

  8. Morris v. South Coventry Tp. Bd. of Sup'rs

    836 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the applicable zoning ordinance did not preclude ownership of open space by neighboring residential lots in a preliminary land approval

    A conclusion that the Board abused its discretion may be reached only if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Centre Lime and Stone Company, Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105, 1108 n. 2 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 740, 798 A.2d 1291 (2002). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  9. Baker v. Upper Southampton Township Zoning Hearing Board

    830 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    However, even if any signs exist in violation of the Ordinance, a de jure exclusion exists where the ordinance on its face totally excludes a proposed use. See Centre Lime and Stone Company v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001). Thus, that such signs actually exist within the Township is irrelevant to the legal issue of whether the Ordinance is de jure exclusionary.

  10. Wolter v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Tredyffrin

    828 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    In a land use appeal, where a full and complete record was made before the Township and the trial court took no additional evidence, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the board committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law. Centre Lime and Stone Co., Inc. v. Spring Township Board of Supervisors, 787 A.2d 1105 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 568 Pa. 740, 798 A.2d 1291 (2002). On appeal, the Township contends that the trial court erred in reversing its decision denying Property Owner's request for subdivision because the condition placed upon the Freyberger Subdivision Plan when it was granted that the property not be further subdivided for 99 years applied to Property Owner's property, and because that restriction "ran with the land," the deed restriction did not have to be recorded in order to be enforced.