“substantial deference to the preservation of rights of property owners”
How later courts described this case
- “substantial deference to the preservation of rights of property owners”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
Because sections 203.2 and 203.9 of the Hopewell Township Zoning Ordinance are not reasonably related to the legitimate government interest in preserving large areas of agricultural land, I concur in the result. Accordingly, we need not decide whether the ordinance violated 53 P.S. § 10107 which exempts from limitation “the division of land for agricultural purposes into parcels of ten acres, not involving any new street or easement;” or whether the limitation on the scope of judicial review imposed by 53 P.S. § 11011(b) is unconstitutional.
NIX, J., joins this concurring opinion.