Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

APPEAL LANGOL. APPEAL BOROUGH COUNCIL BOROUGH MUNHALL. (MUNHALL BOROUGH COUNCIL APPEAL.) (04/15/54)

April 15, 1954

APPEAL OF LANGOL. APPEAL OF BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF MUNHALL. (MUNHALL BOROUGH COUNCIL APPEAL.)


COUNSEL

John E. Evans, Sr., J. B. McAdoo, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

John E. Evans, Sr., Evans, Ivory & Evans, Pittsburgh, amici curiae.

Edward A. Tobias, Tobias & Tobias, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Ross, Gunther, Wright and Woodside, JJ.

Author: Ross

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 321]

ROSS, Judge.

In this zoning controversy involving property in the Borough of Munhall, George Langol, lessee, appealed

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 322]

    to the County court of Allegheny County from an order of the Board of Adjustment revoking a certificate of occupancy issued to him and his lessors pursuant to a prior ruling of the Board. The court below sustained the appeal and directed the municipal authorities to grant Langol a certificate. The Borough, intervenor in the court below, has appealed to this Court.

In June 1937 Michael Veslany and Mary Veslany became the owners of 1129 Ravine Street in Munhall. The premises consisted of a storeroom on the first floor and living quarters on the second. Until 1941 or 1942 the Veslanys operated a 'grocery and confectionery and meat market' in the storeroom. Thereafter they leased the premises to various tenants for similar uses until May 1950, when the storeroom became vacant. Efforts were made to rent it for store purposes. In August 1951 Langol leased the premises.

The basic zoning ordinance of the Borough of Munhall was adopted in January 1942. The several use districts set up therein were 'A' Residence District, 'B' Residence District, Business District and Industrial District. The Veslany property was located in 'B' Residence District.

With respect to the two residential and the business districts: 'A building may be erected, altered or used, and a lot or premises may be used for any of the following purposes and for no other', followed by an enumeration of specific permitted uses. This format is varied somewhat in the provisions dealing with the Industrial District. The ordinance -- after providing that buildings may be devoted to all uses permitted in an 'A' and 'B' Residence District and Business District -- states: 'In this district the land may be used and buildings may be erected, altered or used for any purpose except' enumerated prohibited uses.

In dealing with non-conforming uses the ordinance provides: '(1) The lawful use ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.