Landowner sought review of decision by township planning commission changing zoning ordinance.
The Common Pleas Court issued order in favor of commission, and landowner appealed.
The Commonwealth Court held that:
- Zoning ordinance change which permitted use “by one family or up to four unrelated persons” did not change definition of family;
- Permitted use “by one family or up to four unrelated persons” was in keeping with purpose of traditional town development (TTD) mixed use zoning district;
- Changes permitting drive-through services, did not create new land use category;
- New standards for board of supervisors to grant modifications from design elements did not constitute map change;
- Adjustments to existing design and dimension standards did not create new zoning scheme; and
- Changes were not so comprehensive as to result in substantial change to single tract of land as compared to other similarly situated properties in district.