Appeals from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at No. 14081 of 1969 in case of Appeal of Shanti Singh Sukthankar from the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Radnor Township (transferred to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September 14, 1970), consolidated with appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County at No. 6220 of 1970 in case of Appeal of Shanti Singh Sukthankar from the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Radnor Township.
Douglas D. Royal, with him Greenwell, Porter, Smaltz & Royal, for appellant Gilmour in No. 950 (Appellee in No. 72).
Edward H. P. Fronefield, with him Fronefield, de Furia & Petrikin, for appellee Singh Sukthankar in No. 950 (Appellant in No. 72).
Sondra K. Slade, with her Crawford, Frazier & Diamond, for intervenor-appellant Township of Radnor in No. 950 (Appellee in No. 72).
President Judge Bowman and Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, Mencer and Rogers. Opinion by Judge Rogers. Judge Manderino dissents.
In this zoning matter the owners of adjoining lots joined issue on whether one of them might convert a carriage house to a dwelling house. The controversy
engendered two cases which we will dispose of by one opinion.
In June 1969, the commissioners of Radnor Township approved the subdivision of a 1.69 acre lot on which there were a mansion house and a carriage house into two lots, one of 1.168 acres on which the house was situated and the other of .522 acres on which the carriage house was located. Robert A. Gilmour and Sandra C., his wife, acquired the lot with the carriage house. This structure had been built in about 1900 and is situated about two and one-half feet from the rear lot line which is a common boundary of the property of Shanti Singh Sukthankar and Beatrice, his wife. One of the side walls of the carriage house varies in distance from the boundary line of another neighbor from about two and one-half to twenty-two (22) feet.
Gilmour, desiring to use the carriage house as a dwelling, applied for a permit to make appropriate interior alterations. This was issued. Singh Sukthankar appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board which affirmed the building inspector's grant of the permit. Singh Sukthankar then appealed to the Common Pleas Court which reversed the Board but by its opinion suggested that Gilmour might be entitled to do by variance what it concluded he might not do by right. Gilmour appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which has transferred the matter here, where it is docketed as No. 950 Transfer Docket 1970.
Gilmour applied anew for the permit to alter the carriage house, was refused and appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board contending that, in the circumstances, he was entitled to a variance. After a substantial evidentiary hearing, the Zoning Hearing Board granted the variance, Singh Sukthankar ...