# Laurel Point Associates v. Susquehanna Township Zoning Hearing Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 28, 2005 · 887 A.2d 796

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694409

## Case

- **Full name:** LAUREL POINT ASSOCIATES, Appellant v. SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 28, 2005
- **Citations:** 887 A.2d 796; 2005 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 703
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Colins
- **Judges:** Colins, Friedman, Flaherty
- **Cited by:** 15 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/9694409

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning that "[a]lthough we might agree that the Property is not the best site for residential development and that it would be more profitable for [the landowner] to develop the Property commercially, that does not entitle [the landowner] to a validity variance"

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
President Judge COLINS.
I must dissent. The fact that there has not been a residential home built along Linglestown Road in the property’s vicinity for more than 25 years establishes that it is totally impracticable to develop the property for single-family residential use on this heavily-traveled state highway.
I would reverse and grant the validity variance.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694409. Public record. Not legal advice.