DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 2079 C.D. 1979
Judges: Blatt, Mercer, Rogers
Filed Date: 3/12/1981
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/13/2024
Dissenting Opinion by
I dissent because in my opinion it was not necessary for the Board to make each and every one of the five findings enumerated in Section 912 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10912. It was the landowner’s position that the residential zoning of the rear portion of its lot
Where an owner’s land ... is denied any reasonable use by an unduly restrictive ordinance, the findings [of Section 912] are not ‘relevant in [the] given case’, and are not necessary.