Court Opinion

ID: 9698823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:00:42.931523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:43.674587
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice
concurring.
I join the opinion of Mr. Justice Zappala and write separately to emphasize the obligation of the lower court, in its *442supervisory capacity over the Board, to apply only reasonable restrictions, if any, upon the development or use as-filed. It is true the pertinent language of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10101, et seq., (“the Code”), gives broad discretion to the courts to “order the described development or use approved as to all elements or ... order it approved as to some elements and refer other elements to the governing body agency or officer having jurisdiction thereof for further proceedings, including the adoption of alternative restrictions, in accordance with the court’s opinion and order.” 53 P.S. § 11006-A(c). However that discretion must be exercised within a frame of reference allowing the proposed development or use of the successful challenger, in this case Arthur Shore, as impacted by those purposes enumerated in Section 10105 of the Code.1 Restrictions posing insuperable difficulties or economic impracticability shall not and will not be countenanced irrespective of any rationale advanced therefor.

. § 10105. Purpose of Act
It is the intent, purpose and scope of this act to protect and promote safety, health and morals; to accomplish coordinated development; to provide for the general welfare by guiding and protecting amenity, convenience, future governmental, economic, practical, and social and cultural facilities, development and growth, as well as the improvement of governmental processes and functions; to guide uses of land and structures, type and location of streets, public grounds and other facilities; to promote the conservation of energy through the use of planning practices and to promote the effective utilization of renewable energy sources; and to permit municipalities to minimize such problems as may presently exist or which may be foreseen.

. Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 509 Pa. 413, 502 A.2d 585 (1985).