Appeal, No. 187, Jan. T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1959, No. 3031, in case of Poster Advertising Company, Inc. and Edward J. Dopkis v. Zoning Board of Adjustment. Order reversed.
Edward R. Becker, with him Becker & Becker, for appellants.
James L. Stern, Deputy City Solicitor, with him Lenard L. Wolffe and Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Assistant City Solicitors, and David Berger, City Solicitor, for appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County affirming a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Edward J. Dopkis is the owner of a small vacant piece of land on the north corner of Aramingo Avenue and Bermuda Street in the City of Philadelphia. The land has a front of 14 feet, 7 inches on Bermuda Street. The side lines are approximately 30 feet and 20 feet in depth respectively. The rear line abuts a blank wall of a building used as a residence.
The lot originally ran to a depth of approximately 100 feet and was improved with a residence building. In 1955, the city condemned approximately two-thirds of the land included in the lot for the purposes of laying
and relocating Aramingo Avenue, so that the land after the taking was reduced to its present dimensions.*fn1 As a result of the taking the owner was paid money damages, which was the difference in the market value thereof before and after the taking.
Poster Advertising Company subsequently leased the land remaining, and now involved, from the owner, Dopkis, and applied for a variance for the erection of two outdoor advertising signs thereon, the signs each to be 6 feet by 12 feet, erected 3 feet off the ground. Since the land is zoned "D-1" Residential, under which classification outdoor advertising signs are not permitted, the variance was refused by the zoning administrator, and later by the board of adjustment. The board concluded that: (a) the land involved can be used for residential purposes; (b) the owner of the land received adequate compensation for the value of the entire lot in the condemnation proceedings, hence there is no hardship present; (c) the proposed use would be against the ...