Opinion

In Re Petition of Dolington Land Group

  • 576 Pa. 519
  • 839 A.2d 1021
  • 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2602
  • 2003 WL 23095724
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 30, 2003
Status
Published
Author
Nigro
On the bench
Gappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb
Cited by
21 cases

noting that the zoning board, as factfinder, is the sole judge of credibility with the power to resolve conflicts in the testimony and to reject even uncontradicted testimony that it finds to be lacking in credibility

How later courts described this case

  • noting that the zoning board, as factfinder, is the sole judge of credibility with the power to resolve conflicts in the testimony and to reject even uncontradicted testimony that it finds to be lacking in credibility
  • noting the Zoning Board is the sole judge of credibility with power to resolve conflicts in testimony and to reject even uncontradicted testimony that it finds to be lacking in credibility
  • observing that Section 916.1(h) requires broadened perspective concerning availability of land uses under challenged zoning provisions and multimunicipal comprehensive plan
  • “The... Board as fact-finder is the sole judge of credibility with power to resolve conflicts in the testimony and to reject even uncontradicted testimony that it finds to be lacking in credibility.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

CONCURRING OPINION

Justice NIGRO.

As there was evidence presented before the Zoning Hearing Board (“ZHB”) regarding the characteristics and population growth of each of the four townships included in the joint zoning ordinance (“JZO”) as well as evidence of the previous and projected population growth in all of the townships as a whole, I believe that the record is sufficient in this case to determine whether we must look at Upper Makefield Township alone or at all of the townships in the JZO together to determine whether Upper Makefield Township is in the path of growth. See ZHB Decision, 11/27/00, Fact Finding 33, 95, 96, 113-14, 157 (findings regarding Newtown Borough and Newtown Township); 115, 118-19, 144 (findings regarding Upper Makefield and Wrightstown Townships); 136-37, 139, 156 (findings regarding growth figures of all four townships). Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that we need not decide that issue today because the evidence also established that the JZO did not create an exclusionary result in all of the townships or in the CM District in Upper Makefield Township.

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.