Opinion
Argued: November 17, 1981
April 8, 1982.
Zoning — Scope of appellate review — Substantive challenge — Curative amendment.
1. In a zoning case involving a substantive challenge and request for curative amendment, when no additional evidence is taken by the lower court, the scope of review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to a determination of whether the municipal body abused its discretion or committed an error of law. [27]
Argued November 17, 1981, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges MENCER, CRAIG and MacPHAIL.
Appeal, No. 1600 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in the case of In Re: Appeal of Thiokol Corporation from the Board of Commissioners of Bristol Township, No. 78-6375-11-5.
Substantive challenge and curative amendment to zoning ordinance denied by Board of Commissioners of Bristol Township. Proponent appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. Appeal denied. BORTNER, J. Proponent appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
John A. Van Luvanee, Eastburn and Gray, for appellant.
Clyde W. Waite, with him Leonard B. Sokolove, Sokolove, Pechter, Stief Waite, for appellee.
Thiokol Corporation appeals a Bucks County Common Pleas Court decision which dismissed a substantive challenge to the Bristol Township Zoning Ordinance. We affirm.
The case below was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of BECKERT, P.J., KELTON, J. and BORTNER, J.
Thiokol, owner of a 134-acre tract primarily zoned M-2-Heavy Manufacturing, submitted a substantive challenge to the Zoning Ordinance and a proposed curative amendment in accordance with Sections 609.1 and 1104(1)(b) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P. S. § 10609.1, 11004(1)(b). After extensive hearings, the Bristol Township Commissioners rejected Thiokol's challenge. The court below affirmed.
Thiokol, until recently, utilized this site for an industrial operation.
Thiokol contends that the Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutionally exclusionary for failing to provide its "fair share" of acreage within the Township for single family semi-detached homes or townhouses. We disagree.
Since no additional evidence was taken below, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Board of Commissioners abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Warwick Land Development Corp. v. Board of Supervisors of Warwick Township, 31 Pa. Commw. 450, 376 A.2d 679 (1977).
We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law and affirm on the able opinion of Judge BORTNER, Thiokel Corp. Appeal, ___ Pa. D. C.3rd ___ (1980).
ORDER
The decision of the Bucks County Common Pleas Court, No. 78-6375-11-5, dated May 30, 1980, is affirmed.
Judge MacPHAIL concurs in the result only.
Judge PALLADINO did not participate in the decision in this case.