
    Valley Forge Industries, Inc. Appeal.
    
      Argued January 11, 1962.
    Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O’Brien, JJ.
    
      Samuel H. High, Jr., with him High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel, for appellant.
    
      Joseph J. McGrory, for appellee.
    March 13, 1962:
   Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Bell,

This is a zoning appeal by plaintiff from the denial of a special exception to erect a building 40' x 100' and to pave the remainder of its lot so that it could store asphalt trucks. Plaintiff’s property, approximately 140' x 140', is in a Commercial Zone and the Zoning Ordinance of the Township permits the requested use when authorized by a special exception under certain safeguards set forth in the ordinance. The lower Court did not take any additioiial testimony and therefore the sole question properly before it was whether the Board of Adjustment had committed an error of law or a manifest abuse of its discretion: Moyerman v. Glanzberg, 391 Pa. 387, 138 A. 2d 681; Richman v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 391 Pa. 254, 137 A. 2d 280; Archbishop O’Hara’s Appeal, 389 Pa. 35, 131 A. 2d 587.

The grounds stated by the Board and approved by the Court were: “It is the opinion of the Board that the requested use for which a special exception is requested would be detrimental to the appropriate use of adjacent residential property, because of dust, noise and odor; that the requested use would cause undue congestion of vehicular truck traffic and would endanger the safety of persons or property by improper location or design of facilities for ingress and egress.”

The appellant contends that the Board manifestly abused its discretion because traffic would only be slightly increased and the noise, dust and odor was only a possibility.

This Court cannot measure the degree or extent of noise, dust, odor or traffic. The evidence was carefully analyzed in the able opinion of Judge Gkoshens. It will suffice to say that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the Board and we can find no abuse of discretion.

Order affirmed.  