Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 194 A.2d 926 (Pa. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 194 A.2d 926 (Pa. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1970 · 2 courts · …it is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the medes and the persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change. ✓
25 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Family Golf of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County (tennctapp, 1997-10-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Family Golf of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Furniss v. Lower Merion, 412 Pa. 404 , 194 A.2d 926, 927 (1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doran Investments v. Muhlenberg Township Board of Commissioners
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 1973 · confidence medium
As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 194 A. 2d 926, 927 (1963) : ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must he subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Village 2 at New Hope, Inc. Appeals
Pa. · 1968 · confidence medium
As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 194 A. 2d 926, 927 (1963): “It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.” This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss , but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Furniss, Appellant,
v.
Lower Merion Township
Appeal, 9.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 12, 1963.
194 A.2d 926
1963 Pa. LEXIS 432
Desmond J. McTighe, with him Philip D. Weiss, and Duffy, McTighe & McElhone, for appellants., Edmund B. Spaeth, Jr., with him John E. Forsythe, Township Solicitor, and Wright, Spencer, Manning & Sagendorph, for Township, appellee., Robert L. Tresclier, with him Arthur H. Moss, Gas-sin W. Craig, and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, and Wisler, Pearlstine, Talone & Gerber, for applicant, appellee.
Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Bell,

Neighboring property owners petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County to declare an ordinance invalid * because the permit for an apartment house constituted ad hoc rezoning of 40 acres, and because it constituted a flagrant violation of the applicable Township Comprehensive Plan especially in regard to the density of population as set forth in the plan. The Planning Commission made the following apt statement:

“. . . a word should be said with respect to a misunderstanding which frequently arises in connection with the adoption of any comprehensive Plan for the Township. The thought has often been expressed that, once a Plan has been approved, all difficulties are eliminated. The answer to this is that no comprehensive Plan is perfect; it cannot possibly envisage all problems which will face the community in the future. To preserve the value and overall integrity of any Plan there must be a constant review of it by the governmental authorities and their established agencies, hav[*406] ing regard at all times, however, to the general objectives which have been determined. A Plan cannot remain static and at the same time be realistic, because the forces of growth, economic conditions, character and distribution of population and the technique of planning are constantly in motion.”

It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change. Notwithstanding the able argument of appellant, we find no error of law or clear abuse of discretion.

Order affirmed.

*

The validity of this ordinance was sustained on another point in Gladwyne Colony, Inc. v. Lower Merion Township, 409 Pa. 441, 187 A. 2d 549.