Opinion

Pilot Oil Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board

  • 86 Pa. Commw. 23
  • 483 A.2d 1049
  • 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2001
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Nov 5, 1984
Status
Published
Author
Doyle
On the bench
Craig, Doyle, Williams
Cited by
6 cases

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Judge Doyle:

I respectfully dissent. While acknowledging that an elevated canopy is not within the ordinary under *28 standing of the term “service equipment”, once granted that gasoline pumps are themselves items of service equipment, an elevated canopy over the pumps would also be within the conception, given the specific frame of reference here, “gasoline pumps and other service equipment” (emphasis added). I believe the canopy would therefore be within the exception to the sixty foot set-back requirement.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.