Appeal of Groff

• Decision Date: 03 March 1971
• Citation: 274 A.2d 574,1 Pa.Cmwlth. 439
• Parties: Appeal of Abram P. GROFF from the Decision of the Warwick Township Board of Adjustment.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 574

274 A.2d 574

1 Pa.Cmwlth. 439

Appeal of Abram P. GROFF from the Decision of the Warwick

Township Board of Adjustment.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

March 3, 1971.

Lombardo & Hummer, Lancaster, for appellant.

George J. Morgan, Lancaster, for appellee.

Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, KRAMER, WILKINSON, MANDERINO and MENCER, JJ.

OPINION

CRUMLISH, Judge.

The appellant, Abram P. Groff, owns a thirteen acre tract in Warwick Township, Lancaster County. Approximately four and one-half acres are used by him as a trailer park. Although Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance prohibits trailer parks in this rural district, he has been operating by the grace of a non-conforming use.

The zoning ordinance provides that the Township Zoning Board may grant as a special exception the expansion of nonconforming uses to the extent of 50% Of the initial non-conformity. Groff has applied for an expansion to include his entire thirteen acre tract or roughly 300%. This was his fatal move. From the refusal of his application by the Board, appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. Testimony was taken by the court and the appeal was thus decided de novo. See Richman v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 391 Pa. 254, 257, 137 A.2d 280 (1958). Groff appealed that court's refusal to this Court. While we hold that the appeal is without merit because Groff sought to obtain an expansion of his nonconforming use beyond that which clearly is defined by the Ordinance, we feel it incumbent to consider the merits of the issues raised in this appeal. Appellant contends: (1) the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional in that it prohibits trailer parks in Warwick Township; (2) the classification of mobile home parks in commercial districts only is clearly arbitrary and capricious and thus unconstitutional; (3) the decision to deny Groff's application due to 'increased detrimental effect on surrounding properties' was arbitrary and incorrect. We will dispose of these issues in the order in which they were raised.

I

The Warwick Township Zoning Ordinance clearly and explicitly provides for mobile home parks as a special exception in 'C' Commercial districts. It limits their use, however, to lots of five acres or more. Three areas in the township are appropriate in size and zoning to accommodate mobile home parks. Two of the three areas presently house such parks.

Appellant contends that since there is no vacant land upon which he could legally place a new park, the ordinance totally prohibits that use anywhere within the municipality and relies upon Girsh Appeal, 437 Pa. 237, 263 A.2d 395 (1970). In Girsh, however, the township had impliedly excluded all apartment houses anywhere. It is an altogether different situation where the township has provided space for development of a use and that space is exhausted by proper development. While it may be inherently discriminatory for a township to totally exclude a use from its borders, we fail to see the analogy by which we could reason that a legitimately appropriated area for a specific use which has been saturated is in the same posture as a total prohibition of that use within a municipality.

The Warwick Township Ordinance neither impliedly nor expressly prohibits mobile home parks in that municipality. It is not unconstitutional.

II

Appellant contends that the ordinance is also unconstitutional because it restricts mobile home parks to commercial zones. Zoning ordinances which confine a use to one particular region are 'premised on the fundamental reasonableness of allocating to each type of activity a particular location in the community.' Exton Quarries, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 425 Pa. 43, 59, 228 A.2d 169, 179 (1967). They are accorded a presumption of their valid relationship to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. National Land and Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Bd. of Adj., 419 Pa. 504, 522, 215 A.2d 597 (1965).

We have before us nothing which would demonstrate that trailer parks in a commercial region are unrelated to the health, safety, morals and general welfare. Indeed, appellee produced evidence which convinces us that trailer parks flourish in the commercial zones. See Honey Brook Twp. v. Alenovitz, 430 Pa. 614, 243 A.2d 330 (1968).

We believe it important to note that the only issue raised in this appeal is the regulation of mobile home Parks. The regulation of this use is pointed to business functions of the park. We are not concerned here with the question of the location of mobile homes in residential zones. We do not pass upon the question of the validity of an ordinance which would prohibit a mobile home on a single residential lot.

III

Based on the testimony it heard, the court below held that the requested expansion would have an inescapable detrimental effect on surrounding properties. Specifically, it found that (1) the increased flow of traffic would endanger the elderly patients of the United Zion Home which is adjacent to the...