# In Re Appeal of Elocin, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 27, 1983 · 501 Pa. 348

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767232

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Appeal of ELOCIN, INC., From the Denial of Its Challenges to the Validity of the Zoning Ordinance and Map of Springfield Township, Delaware County, and of Its Curative Amendment Application by the Board of Commissioners of Springfield Township, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 27, 1983
- **Citations:** 501 Pa. 348; 461 A.2d 771; 1983 Pa. LEXIS 521
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Nix
- **Judges:** Zappala, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Commonwealth, Elocin, Inc, Cmwlth
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9767232

## Opinion text

NIX, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The majority persists in its failure to recognize that townhouses provide a distinct legitimate use which is not satisfied by adequate provision within the municipality for multi-family dwellings. By condoning Springfield Township’s total exclusion of townhouses within its borders, the majority forecloses the development of a less expensive form of housing in a convenient Philadelphia suburb whose present population density is below average for Delaware County and whose projected population growth is significant. Proper analysis under the test announced by this *355 Court in Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Providence Township, 476 Pa. 182 , 382 A.2d 105 (1977), requires the conclusion that Springfield Township is not so highly developed that it may escape its constitutional obligation to make available a “fair share” of its area for the affordable housing which townhouses are uniquely able to provide and for those who must find such housing now and in the future.
Thus, I am compelled to dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which upholds the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance as to its total exclusion of townhouses. I would remand this matter to the Court of Common Pleas for consideration of Elocin’s proposed plan for that type of housing in Springfield Township.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9767232. Public record. Not legal advice.