Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Chrysler Motor Corporation v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, No. 2778 October Term, 1972.
Carl K. Zucker, with him Reuben E. Cohen and Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman & Cohen, for appellant.
Wanda P. Chocallo, Assistant City Solicitor, with her James M. Penny, Jr., Assistant City Solicitor, John Mattioni, Deputy City Solicitor, and Martin Weinberg, City Solicitor, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 364]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirming the denial of a variance by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia. Since the court below received no evidence, our duty is to determine whether or not the Board of Adjustment committed a manifest abuse of discretion or committed an error of law.
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 365]
Roosevelt Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., an automobile sales agency, filed an application for a zoning permit for the use of a portion of property rented by it from Commonwealth Realty Investment Trust, the owner, as a parking lot for new cars. The permit was refused because the requested use was not permitted in the zoning district where proposed. The Board of Adjustment was asked to grant a variance.*fn1
The applicant's premises are located on the west side of Roosevelt Boulevard and are bounded by the Boulevard on the east, Hartel Avenue on the south, Borbeck Street on the north, and Bradford Street on the west. The total depth of the lot from Roosevelt Boulevard to Bradford Street is about 420 feet. That part of the lot fronting on the Boulevard and extending in a westerly direction to a depth of about 310 feet was when the present owners and tenants acquired the property in 1964, and is still zoned for commercial uses. The remainder of the tract abutting Hartel Avenue, Borbeck Street and Bradford Street, was and is located in a R-5 zoning district in which a new car parking lot is not a permitted use.
The applicant sought to obtain the variance on the ground that that portion of its property within the R-5 zone had characteristics which precluded its use for the permitted residential purposes within the rule of Forest Hills Borough Appeal, 409 Pa. 392, 187 A.2d 166 (1963), or that the characteristics of the area were such that the subject portion of its property had either no value or only a distress value for residential purposes
[ 13 Pa. Commw. Page 366]
within the rule of Peirce v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 410 Pa. 262, 189 A.2d 138 (1963).
The Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the variance and the Common Pleas ...