Court Opinion

ID: 9703812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:08:30.291409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.809288
License: Public Domain

*75Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
I concur in the result, but completely disagree with that part of the majority opinion which states that the Church was a “permitted use” by virtue of the Ordinance of 1926. For approximately 40 years before the ordinance, this Church was a lawful building on the premises upon which it was erected. The fact that in 1926 a zoning ordinance was passed which made a Church in this district a “permitted” use, “subject to Township approval of location and site plans” is not only presently irrelevant but highly prejudicial to the Church. That “permission” could not legally transform and restrict this lawfully existing Church into only a “permissive” use, and thereby prohibit its natural expansion, increase extension or growth, to which it would be entitled as a matter of right — not a matter of “permission” or grace — under principles governing what the cases have inaptly called a “non-conforming” use. See: Pierce Appeal, 384 Pa. 100, 105, 119 A. 2d 506; Gilfillan’s Permit, 291 Pa. 358, 362, 140 A. 136, 138; Haller Baking Co.’s Appeal, 295 Pa. 257, 261, 262, 145 A. 77, 79; Cheswick Borough v. Bechman, 352 Pa. 79, 82, 42 A. 2d 60, 62; Schneider v. Zoning Board, 389 Pa. 593, 133 A. 2d 536; Yocum Zoning Case, 393 Pa. 148, 152, 141 A. 2d 601.