# In Re Petition of Dolington Land Group

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 30, 2003 · 576 Pa. 519

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649073

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re PETITION OF DOLINGTON LAND GROUP and Toll Bros., Inc. From the Decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Makefield Township, Appeal of Dolington Land Group and Toll Bros., Inc. Mary Jane and Calvin Larson, Frances Bielski, Carol Stuckley, Otto Schneider and Robert Mutschler Larson, Appellees/Intervenors
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 30, 2003
- **Citations:** 576 Pa. 519; 839 A.2d 1021; 2003 Pa. LEXIS 2602; 2003 WL 23095724
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Gappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin, Lamb
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649073

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9649073. Public record. Not legal advice.