Appeals, Nos. 160 and 165, Jan. T., 1954, and Nos. 284 and 298, Jan. T., 1953, from orders of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1953, No. 4857 and March T., 1953, No. 5916, in cases of Julian B. Shapiro and Stenton Park, Inc. v. John E. Power, Jr., et al., constituting Zoning Board of Adjustment, and City of Philadelphia. Orders affirmed. Appeal by applicant from decision of Zoning Board of Adjustment refusing issuance of permit to build amusement park in residential area. Before GUERIN and DAVIS, JJ. Order entered sustaining appeal and directing permits to issue, opinion by GUERIN, J. Defendants appealed.
James L. Stern, with him Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Assistant City Solicitors, Abraham L. Freedman, City Solicitor and Jerome J. Shestack, First Deputy City Solicitor, for City of Philadelphia, appellant.
John C. Noonan, with him Irvin Stander, for intervening defendants, appellants.
C. Brewster Rhoads and Michael H. Egnal, with them Don F. D'Agui, for plaintiffs, appellees.
Before Stern, C.j., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE JONES
While these several appeals relate in general to the same matter, viz., the appellees' right under the zoning ordinance of the City of Philadelphia to permits for a particular use of the property involved, the
appeals raise entirely different questions, growing out of separate actions, which require separate records and briefing. We shall, however, dispose of all appeals in this one opinion.
Some time prior to March, 1953, Julian B. Shapiro became the lessee of a vacant lot of ground located at the southeast corner of Stenton Avenue and Tulpehocken Street in the northwest section of Philadelphia, having a frontage on Stenton Avenue of 275 feet and on Tulpehocken Street of 450 feet. The land is in an area which was zoned "A" Commercial. The uses permitted in an "A" Commercial District, as prescribed by Section 16 of Philadelphia's zoning ordinance, specifically included those "uses permitted in any Residential District"; and, among the uses permitted in a "D" Residential District, as set forth in Section 10 of the ordinance, were "Athletic or amusement parks which shall not be changed to other uses that are not in conformity with the district regulations."
On March 18, 1953, Shapiro made application to the department of licenses and inspections of the City for use registration permits which would enable him to establish a "kiddie amusement park" on the demised premises. The application was denied and from that action Shapiro appealed to the zoning board of adjustment. At a public hearing before the board, the issuance of the permits was vigorously opposed by residents of the area. A few days later (April 23rd), the board, by a vote of three to two (one member abstaining), dismissed the appeal, stating that "since the Zoning Ordinance does not permit the establishment of a Kiddie Amusement Park in an 'A' Commercial District, a Permit should ...