Court Opinion

ID: 9755800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:51:12.738607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:11.511763
License: Public Domain

DOYLE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because the facts presented in this case fit squarely within the purview of Section 95-90 of the Borough’s zoning ordinance.
Section 95-90 of the ordinance, reduced to its essential provisions, states:
A lot ... of record title ... which is in single and separate ownership at the time of the enactment of this chapter [1969], where such owner does not own adjoining land ... may be used for a use permitted in the district in which it is located....
Nothing is more clear than the Gregors owned only Lot 40 (since 1967) when the ordinance was adopted in 1969 and did not acquire Lot 41 until 1980. The East Greenville Borough Zoning Hearing Board ignored Section 95-90, finding only that the Gregors’ hardship was “self-created” because they purchased Lot 41 eleven years after the adoption of the zoning ordinance.
In footnote 1 the majority (op. p. 310) concludes that Section 95-90 is inapplicable. To the contrary, since Lot 41 was held in single and separate ownership at the time of the enactment *428of the zoning ordinance in 1969 and meets the minimum and maximum lot size requirements, Section 95-90 is applicable.