Dunn v. Zoning Hearing Board

Respectfully I must dissent from that part of the majority opinion that finds that the trial judge erred when he concluded that the kennel was a preexisting nonconforming use limited to twenty-eight hounds, and I further dissent from the majority’s holding that the Appellants are entitled to an expansion of their pack of foxhounds as a nonconforming use by a special exception under Section 1301.b of the Township’s zoning ordinance.

First, the matter of a special exception was never, at any time, raised by the Appellants as an issue and was, therefore, waived. Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust…