# Boundary Drive Associates v. Shrewsbury Township Board of Supervisors

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 8, 1985 · 507 Pa. 481

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747329

## Case

- **Full name:** BOUNDARY DRIVE ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and Shrewsbury Township Zoning Hearing Board, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 8, 1985
- **Citations:** 507 Pa. 481; 491 A.2d 86; 1985 Pa. LEXIS 369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos, Flaherty'S
- **Cited by:** 52 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/9747329

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an applicant for a validity variance must also meet the requirements of section 912 of the MPC, the predecessor to section 910.2

## Opinion text

*495 FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion authored by Mr. Justice Hutchinson. The Shrewsbury Township zoning ordinance, which permits appellant to place upon its original forty-three acre tract a total of four dwellings, does not, as applied to appellant, constitute such a severe restriction upon land use as to violate the substantive due process test set forth in Hopewell Township Board of Supervisors v. Golla, 499 Pa. 246 , 452 A.2d 1337 (1982). Judgment is reserved, however, as to whether the zoning ordinance would be valid when applied to other properties having differing tract sizes and soil compositions, as such properties might arguably, in certain instances, be limited too far in their potential for development under the provisions of the zoning ordinance.
In Hopewell, this Court made it clear that it will pay heed to traditional concepts of due process in determining the validity of restrictive zoning ordinances. The Hopewell decision set forth a further requirement that the extent of permissible residential development bear a reasonable relationship to tract size, though a per se requirement that the relationship be a perfect linear one was not imposed. Zoning restrictions, such as the ones which this Court invalidated in Hopewell, which constitute examples of governmental capriciousness and which operate to infringe the due process rights of property owners, will not be upheld in their application. As stated in Hopewell, 499 Pa. at 255 , 452 A.2d at 1341 , “The substantive due process inquiry, involving a balancing of landowners’ rights against the public interest sought to be protected by an exercise of the police power, must accord substantial deference to the preservation of rights of property owners, within constraints of the ancient maxim of our common law, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. 9 Coke 59 — So use your own property as not to injure your neighbors.” Further, when the validity of a zoning restriction is challenged, “the function of judicial review ... is to engage in a meaningful inquiry into the reasonableness of the restriction on land use in light of the deprivation of landowner’s freedom thereby incurred.” *496 Hopewell, 499 Pa. at 256 , 452 A.2d at 1342 . Indeed, a zoning ordinance can be sustained only when the restrictions imposed thereby upon landowner rights are regarded as “clearly necessary” when balanced against the public interest sought to be protected. Hopewell, 499 Pa. at 257-258 , 452 A.2d at 1342-1343 . The important public interest in preserving prime agricultural land supports the restriction that has been placed upon appellant’s land, insofar as development has been limited to the creation of four dwellings upon appellant’s forty-three acre tract. Thus, the ordinance in question is valid as applied.
This Concurring Opinion joined by PAPADAKOS, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9747329. Public record. Not legal advice.