Kavanagh v. London Grove Tp.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1978 |
| Citation | 33 Pa.Cmwlth. 420,382 A.2d 148 |
| Parties | Edward F. KAVANAGH, Huston T. Adams and Robert M. Abernethy, Appellants, v. LONDON GROVE TOWNSHIP et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Page 148
Appellants,
v.
LONDON GROVE TOWNSHIP et al., Appellees.
Decided Feb. 1, 1978.
Page 149
[33 Pa.Cmwlth. 421] George A. Brutscher, Kennett Square, for appellants.
Wood, Parke & Barnes, Lawrence Eyre Wood, West Chester, for London Grove Township.
Lentz, Riley, Cantor, Kilgore & Massey, John C. Snyder & Robert W. Lentz, Paoli, for intervenor.
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, Jr., WILKINSON, ROGERS, BLATT and DiSALLE, JJ.
[33 Pa.Cmwlth. 422] OPINION
[33 Pa.Cmwlth. 421] WILKINSON, Judge.
This case is on appeal to this Court from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County affirming the dismissal by the London Grove Township Board of Supervisors of a curative amendment application. This application was filed by the three appellants, who are the equitable owners of a 79.6 acre tract of land located in an R-1 zoning district in London Grove Township (Township). The R-1 district is primarily a residential area, but does allow for the operation of a sanitary landfill provided it is operated by a municipal authority or a municipality. The curative amendment submitted by the appellants would alter this provision of the Township zoning ordinance so as to allow for privately-owned and operated landfills, since it is the desire of the appellants to establish a landfill on their tract of land. Their curative amendment application has been opposed by a number of landowners whose properties are in close proximity to the appellants' land, and these landowners have formally intervened in the case.
The appellants primarily contend that the zoning ordinance in question is exclusionary, discriminatory, arbitrary and unconstitutional. We cannot agree, primarily because we do not find the ordinance to be exclusionary. Sanitary landfills are a permitted use within the Township, except that they must be operated by either a municipality or a municipal authority. The decision of the Township to so limit landfills is a legislative one, and one which is explicitly reserved to the Township under the provisions of Section 702 of The Second Class Township Code, Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, as amended, 53 P.S. § 65708. See Daugherty v. Messner, 404 Pa. 235, 172 A.2d 288 (1961). We find no support for appellants' contention that this decision is arbitrary and discriminatory, [33 Pa.Cmwlth....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liverpool Tp. v. Stephens
...facility or solid waste facility within a 2,000 feet radius of any residence or residential area. See also Kavanagh v. London Grove Township, 33 Pa.Cmwlth. 420, 382 A.2d 148 (1978). Other than the Ordinance here being less restrictive — because a farmer can still farm up to his property lin......
-
Kavanagh v. London Grove Tp.
...without taking additional testimony. On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court unanimously affirmed. Kavanagh v. London Grove Township, 33 Pa.Cmwth. 420, 382 A.2d 148 (1977). This Court granted appellants' petition for allowance of appeal on November 9, 1978. I. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT ......
-
St. Margaret Memorial Hosp. v. Borough Council of Borough of Aspinwall
...publicly owned parking lots as a main use and not privately owned ones constitutes exclusionary zoning, Kavanagh v. London Grove Township, 33 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 420, 382 A.2d 148 (1978), aff'd by an equally divided court, 486 Pa. 133, 404 A.2d 393 (1979), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1041, 1......
-
Municipality of Monroeville v. Chambers Development Corp.
...Ct. 328, 467 A.2d 912 (1983) (zoning ordinance regulating location of new landfill not preempted); Kavanagh v. London Grove Township, 33 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 420, 382 A.2d 148 (1978), aff'd per curiam, 486 Pa. 133, 404 A.2d 393 (1979) (equally divided court), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1041,......