# Appeal of Gregor

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · June 24, 1993 · 156 Pa. Commw. 418

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755800

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Appeal of William T. and Betty J. GREGOR From the Decision of the East Greenville Borough Zoning Hearing Board. Appeal of William T. and Betty J. Gregor, Appellants
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 24, 1993
- **Citations:** 156 Pa. Commw. 418; 627 A.2d 308; 1993 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 380
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Doyle
- **Judges:** Doyle, Smith, Narick
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9755800

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[t]he burden is placed upon the party who asserts a physical merger to establish” that merger is required
- holding that use of an adjoining lot as a lawn area, garden, and truck passage was insufficient to establish merger

## Opinion text

DOYLE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because the facts presented in this case fit squarely within the purview of Section 95-90 of the Borough’s zoning ordinance.
Section 95-90 of the ordinance, reduced to its essential provisions, states:
A lot ... of record title ... which is in single and separate ownership at the time of the enactment of this chapter [1969], where such owner does not own adjoining land ... may be used for a use permitted in the district in which it is located....
Nothing is more clear than the Gregors owned only Lot 40 (since 1967) when the ordinance was adopted in 1969 and did not acquire Lot 41 until 1980. The East Greenville Borough Zoning Hearing Board ignored Section 95-90, finding only that the Gregors’ hardship was “self-created” because they purchased Lot 41 eleven years after the adoption of the zoning ordinance.
In footnote 1 the majority (op. p. 310) concludes that Section 95-90 is inapplicable. To the contrary, since Lot 41 was held in single and separate ownership at the time of the enactment *428 of the zoning ordinance in 1969 and meets the minimum and maximum lot size requirements, Section 95-90 is applicable.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755800. Public record. Not legal advice.