Furniss v. Lower Merion Township

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Furniss v. Lower Merion Township

194 A.2d 926, 412 Pa. 404, 1963 Pa. LEXIS 432

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 12, 1963

DocketAppeal, 9

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 194 A.2d 926 (Furniss v. Lower Merion Township) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Furniss v. Lower Merion Township, 194 A.2d 926, 412 Pa. 404, 1963 Pa. LEXIS 432 (Pa. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Bell,

Neighboring property owners petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County to declare an ordinance invalid * because the permit for an apartment house constituted ad hoc rezoning of 40 acres, and because it constituted a flagrant violation of the applicable Township Comprehensive Plan especially in regard to the density of population as set forth in the plan. The Planning Commission made the following apt statement:

“. . . a word should be said with respect to a misunderstanding which frequently arises in connection with the adoption of any comprehensive Plan for the Township. The thought has often been expressed that, once a Plan has been approved, all difficulties are eliminated. The answer to this is that no comprehensive Plan is perfect; it cannot possibly envisage all problems which will face the community in the future. To preserve the value and overall integrity of any Plan there must be a constant review of it by the governmental authorities and their established agencies, hav *406 ing regard at all times, however, to the general objectives which have been determined. A Plan cannot remain static and at the same time be realistic, because the forces of growth, economic conditions, character and distribution of population and the technique of planning are constantly in motion.”

It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change. Notwithstanding the able argument of appellant, we find no error of law or clear abuse of discretion.

Order affirmed.

*

The validity of this ordinance was sustained on another point in Gladwyne Colony, Inc. v. Lower Merion Township, 409 Pa. 441, 187 A. 2d 549.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Bell,

Neighboring property owners petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County to declare an ordinance invalid * because the permit for an apartment house constituted ad hoc rezoning of 40 acres, and because it constituted a flagrant violation of the applicable Township Comprehensive Plan especially in regard to the density of population as set forth in the plan. The Planning Commission made the following apt statement:

“. . . a word should be said with respect to a misunderstanding which frequently arises in connection with the adoption of any comprehensive Plan for the Township. The thought has often been expressed that, once a Plan has been approved, all difficulties are eliminated. The answer to this is that no comprehensive Plan is perfect; it cannot possibly envisage all problems which will face the community in the future. To preserve the value and overall integrity of any Plan there must be a constant review of it by the governmental authorities and their established agencies, hav *406 ing regard at all times, however, to the general objectives which have been determined. A Plan cannot remain static and at the same time be realistic, because the forces of growth, economic conditions, character and distribution of population and the technique of planning are constantly in motion.”

It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change. Notwithstanding the able argument of appellant, we find no error of law or clear abuse of discretion.

Order affirmed.

*

The validity of this ordinance was sustained on another point in Gladwyne Colony, Inc. v. Lower Merion Township, 409 Pa. 441, 187 A. 2d 549.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.2d 926, 412 Pa. 404, 1963 Pa. LEXIS 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furniss-v-lower-merion-township-pa-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack