Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtestimonypleazoning

appealzoningappellee

Related Cases

Appeal of Kit-Mar Builders, Inc., 439 Pa. 466, 268 A.2d 765, 1 ERC 1152, 48 A.L.R.3d 1190

Facts

Kit-Mar Builders, Inc. entered into an agreement to purchase a 140-acre tract of land in Concord Township, Delaware County, contingent on the land being rezoned to allow for single-family homes on one-acre lots. The existing zoning required a minimum of two acres along existing roads and three acres in the interior. After the township denied the request for rezoning and a building permit, Kit-Mar Builders appealed to the zoning board of adjustment, which upheld the minimum lot requirements. The case was then taken to the Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the board's decision without taking additional testimony.

Appellee Kit-Mar Builders, Inc., entered into an agreement to purchase a 140-acre tract of land in Concord Township, Delaware County. The agreement was contingent on the tract's being rezoned to permit the construction of single-family homes on lots of one acre, since the tract was then zoned to require lots of no less than two acres along the existing roads and no less than three acres in the interior. Appellee's request for rezoning and application for a building permit were denied; it then appealed to the zoning board of adjustment and announced that it would not seek to prove the hardship necessary to secure a variance but would instead attack the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance as applied to the property in question.

Issue

Is the zoning ordinance that imposes a minimum lot requirement of not less than two acres along existing roads and no less than three acres in the interior of the township constitutional?

The basic question is whether an Ordinance which imposes a minimum lot requirement of not less than two acres along the existing roads, and no less than three acres in the interior of the township, is Constitutional.

Rule

Zoning ordinances must not be exclusionary and must serve a legitimate public purpose, such as health, safety, or general welfare, without being arbitrary or unreasonable.

Analysis

The court found that the minimum lot size requirements imposed by the township were exclusionary and did not serve a legitimate public purpose. It referenced its previous decision in National Land, which established that zoning with an exclusionary purpose is not acceptable. The court noted that the township's justification regarding potential sewerage problems was insufficient, as alternative methods for addressing such issues existed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, declaring the zoning ordinance unconstitutional and emphasizing that communities cannot restrict population growth through exclusionary zoning.

Who won?

Kit-Mar Builders, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found the township's zoning ordinance to be unconstitutional and exclusionary.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Roberson v. Roberson, 296 Minn. 476, 206 N.W.2d 347

City of Anaheim v. Michel, 259 Cal.App.2d 835, 66 Cal.Rptr. 543

Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. v. Riley, 161 W.Va. 782, 247 S.E.2d 712

In re Brown’s Estate, 22 Cal.App.2d 480, 71 P.2d 345

Martin v. City of Indianapolis, 192 F.3d 608, 1999 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,949, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1383