acknowledging that “exclusionary or unduly restrictive zoning techniques do not have the requisite substantial relationship to the public welfare.”
How later courts described this case
- acknowledging that “exclusionary or unduly restrictive zoning techniques do not have the requisite substantial relationship to the public welfare.”
- exclusionary zoning; zoning ordinance must bear a substantial relationship to the health, safety, welfare and general morals of the community
- where amount of land zoned as being •available for particular use is disproportionately small, ordinance will be held exclusionary
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bucks County Housing Development Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board, 85 Pa. Commw. 42 (1984)
However, under the circumstances here, Surrick and Casey are inapposite.
The opinion
ROBERTS, J.,
files a concurring opinion.
Appellee-intervenor’s assertion that the greatest demand for housing in the township is for single-family homes on one acre lots rather proves too much. One need not probe too deeply into the economic mechanics of supply and demand to realize that the zoned-in scarcity of land for multi-family dwellings could easily create this type of demand.
*197 APPENDIX'
LEGEND
[[Image here]]