# Visionquest National, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 1, 1990 · 524 Pa. 107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704824

## Case

- **Full name:** VISIONQUEST NATIONAL, LTD., Appellee, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF HONEY BROOK TOWNSHIP, CHESTER COUNTY, Pennsylvania, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 1, 1990
- **Citations:** 524 Pa. 107; 569 A.2d 915; 1990 Pa. LEXIS 59
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Larsen
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9704824

## Opinion text

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the majority. I write separately, however, to emphasize why this Court finds that the location of appellee VisionQuest’s wilderness camp would be a detriment to the community in which it is located.
The closest neighbors of appellee’s wilderness camp, i.e., those within a half mile radius, include a bible camp, which hosts 250 campers during the summer months; a retirement community, which houses 325 elderly residents and staff year round; and two campgrounds, one of which sees a pass-through population of approximately 1,000 people from April 15 through October 15. Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 27-32 (April 23, 1984) and N.T. at 119-21 (December 20, 1983).
As Mr. Justice Musmanno noted with his usual expressiveness:
[TJownship authorities have the right to refuse to allow in the midst of its territory an omnipresent, possible disaster. No one could reasonably object if the township declined to permit a tiger farm within its geographical limits, regardless of the height of the walls built around the tigers, and regardless how expert might be the tiger trainers employed to guard these creatures of the jungle.
Tidewater Oil Company v. Poore, 395 Pa. 89 at 96 , 149 A.2d 636 at 639 (1959). Although appellee is to be commended for trying to turn around the lives of severely troubled youths, its “wilderness” camp should not be located in close proximity to nearly one thousand people, most of whom are either elderly or living temporarily in tents and *117 camper trailers and cannot even retreat to the safety of a secured home when one of those “out of control” youths is on the loose. It must be noted as well that Honey Brook Township has only a part-time police force (eight hours per day, six days per week), and the State Police take up to two hours to respond to a call from the community. N.T. at 21-22 (June 4, 1984). Clearly, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that appellee’s use of the property in question was detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. In fact, if the Board would have found otherwise, it would have been error.
Accordingly, I join the order of the majority reversing the order of the Commonwealth Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704824. Public record. Not legal advice.