decided: March 22, 1966.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1964, No. 2325, in case of Frank Polizzi, Jr. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Charles L. Guerin, Jr., for appellant.
Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Second Deputy City Solicitor, with him Gerald Gornish, Assistant City Solicitor, and Edward G. Bauer, Jr., City Solicitor, for zoning board, appellee.
Samuel Diamond, with him Stanley W. Bluestine, Irving Koffler, and Bluestine, Diamond, Polsky & Bauer, for intervenors.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.
Author: Per Curiam
[ 420 Pa. Page 406]
The owners of real estate at 4231 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, extending back to Sansom Street, applied to the Philadelphia board of adjustment for a variance to permit the use of the property as a six-family dwelling, all the units to be apartments with separate baths and kitchen facilities. The property was then being used legally under a variance allowed in 1940 for nine units (two housekeeping units and seven rooming units).
The portion of the property fronting on Walnut Street is zoned R5, and multiple family occupancy is not permitted in such a zone. The rear 94 feet of the
[ 420 Pa. Page 407]
over-all 194 feet of the property, going back to Sansom Street, is zoned R9, and multiple family occupancy is permitted in such a zone.
The board of adjustment allowed the variance requested, and appellant, the next door neighbor, whose property contains six apartments, appealed to the court below which, without taking testimony, affirmed the action of the board of adjustment. We allowed an appeal under Rule 68 1/2.
Since the court below took no additional testimony, our function is to determine whether the board of adjustment clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Mulac Appeal, 418 Pa. 207, 210 A.2d 275 (1965); Cleaver v. Bd. of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 367, 200 A.2d 408 (1964); Jasy Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 563, 198 A.2d 854 (1964). Finding neither a clear abuse of discretion nor an error of law in the determination of the board of adjustment, its conclusion will be affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.