In re Appeal of Thiokol Corp. from the Board of Commissioners

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

In re Appeal of Thiokol Corp. from the Board of Commissioners

443 A.2d 1332, 66 Pa. Commw. 26, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1208

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 8, 1982·No. Appeal, No. 1600 C.D. 1980·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

Thiokol Corporation appeals a Bucks County Common Pleas Court decision¹ which dismissed a substan[27] tive challenge to the Bristol Township Zoning Ordinance. We affirm.

Thiokol, owner of a 134-acre tract primarily zoned M-2-IIeavy Manufacturing,² 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 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 townhouse®. 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. Commonwealth Ct. 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.

Footnotes

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

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

Thiokol Corporation appeals a Bucks County Common Pleas Court decision¹ which dismissed a substan[27] tive challenge to the Bristol Township Zoning Ordinance. We affirm.

Thiokol, owner of a 134-acre tract primarily zoned M-2-IIeavy Manufacturing,² 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 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 townhouse®. 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. Commonwealth Ct. 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.

Footnotes

In re Appeal of Thiokol Corp. from the Board of Commissioners, 443 A.2d 1332, 66 Pa. Commw. 26, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1208 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

443 A.2d 1332 (In re Appeal of Thiokol Corp. from the Board of Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related