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.

BIDWELL v. ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT AND CHATHAM COLLEGE AND CITY PITTSBURGH (01/24/72)

decided: January 24, 1972.

BIDWELL, ET AL.
v.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND CHATHAM COLLEGE AND CITY OF PITTSBURGH, ADDITIONAL PARTIES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Charles and Natasha Bidwell, Mrs. Maria F. Drake, Mrs. Ida Chait, William and Pauline Shrager, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Siekman, Silvia Derdeyn, William R. and Joan Hamby, Andrew Rose, Dewey and Anne Clark, Alfred and Eve Manella, Thomas D. Carr, Clifford and Jan Wise, William and Rosella Francis, Linda Little, Antoni de Chicchis, Mary Anne and Robert Williamson, Mrs. Corrine R. Devol, John Michael, Steve Skwarko, Kenneth Claus, Marc and Rosalind Goldberg, Joseph M. and Yvonne Singer, Prudence Doodale, Dean and Terry Clark, James and Nicky Turner, Cyril A. and Jane Fox, Paul and Barbara Schrading, Al and Miriam Adams, Morton and Ruth Kanefsky, Mr. and Mrs. C. Holmes Wolfe, Jr., John M. and Anne Duff, Dr. and Mrs. Philip Brostoff, Reid and Abie Ruttenberg, Mr. and Mrs. Leroy Little, Robert and Beulah Behrman, Mr. and Mrs. Edward C. Myers, Mr. and Mrs. Meyer Kaufman, Mr. and Mrs. M. G. Nevins, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Crone, Mr. and Mrs. Max Bluestone v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Pittsburgh, No. SA 955 of 1970.

COUNSEL

Paul H. Titus, with him Kaufman & Kaufman, for appellants.

John R. Valaw, Assistant Solicitor, with him Ralph Lynch, Jr., City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh.

H. Woodruff Turner, with him John G. Frazer, Jr., and Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchinson, for Chatham College.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, Mencer and Rogers. Judge Manderino did not participate in the decision. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 329]

This is an appeal from a decision and order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing the appeal of Bidwell, et al., appellants, from a decision of the Zoning Board (Board) of Adjustment of Pittsburgh. The Board had affirmed the decision of the Zoning Administrator to issue occupancy and building permits to intervening appellee, Chatham College.

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 330]

This appeal attacks the validity of two Zoning Ordinances of the City of Pittsburgh.

The tract in question consists of approximately thirteen to sixteen lots fronting on Murray Hill Avenue in Pittsburgh and contiguous, in the rear, to the Chatham College Campus. The campus has at all time relevant to the instant action been located in a tract zoned "R-3" Multiple Family Resident District. Prior to the actions involved in this case, the tract in question was zoned "R-1" Single Family Residence District. In 1968, Chatham College filed a petition with the City Planning Commission to change the zoning classification of the 13-16-lot tract from "R-1" to "R-3" in order to construct a library and lecture hall along with appropriate off-street parking facilities.

After public hearings were held, the City Council amended the Zoning District Map and changed the zoning of the lots from "R-1" to "R-3".*fn1 Chatham College subsequently applied for a conditional use permit pursuant to the zoning amendment. Following public hearings this application was also approved by ordinance of the City Council.*fn2

An appeal challenging the validity of the zoning change was dismissed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas, which took no additional testimony.

Appellants contend that by rezoning these premises from "R-1" to "R-3" this particular tract is the object of special treatment without justification and therefore the reclassification is invalid as spot zoning. Appellants further contend that the application for the conditional use was made under the ...


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.