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.

CENTER CITY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v. ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT AND 18TH AND RITTENHOUSE ASSOCIATES (01/10/80)

decided: January 10, 1980.

CENTER CITY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT
v.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND 18TH AND RITTENHOUSE ASSOCIATES, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Center City Residents Association, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment and 18th and Rittenhouse Associates, No. 3244 August Term, 1977.

COUNSEL

Christopher F. Stouffer, with him, Hamilton, Darmopray & Mallor, for appellant.

Ronald Beifeld, Assistant City Solicitor, with him, Michael H. Egnal, Stephen G. Brown, of Egnal and Egnal, P.A., for appellees.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.

Author: Mencer

[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 417]

This is an appeal by the Center City Residents Association (protestants) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirming the

[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 418]

    decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia (Board) to grant a use variance to 18th and Rittenhouse Associates (applicant) for premises at 250 South 18th Street.

The premises consist of a 16-Story building with 28 apartment/condominium units situated in an R-16 residential zoning district. The applicant seeks a variance to use the ground floor for three professional or commercial offices as permitted in a C-2 commercial district. The Board granted a variance and listed C-2 commercial uses available to the applicant. The lower court affirmed, as do we.

Since the lower court took no additional evidence, in reviewing this matter we are limited to determining whether the Board abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Ottaviano v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 366, 376 A.2d 286 (1977).

Protestants argue that the applicant failed to meet its burden of proving its entitlement to a variance under Section 14-1802 of the Philadelphia Code. Further, they argue that the applicant failed to meet its burden of proving unnecessary hardship which is peculiar to the applicant's property and of proving that the proposed variance is not contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare. See Ottaviano v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, supra.

After carefully reviewing the record, we find there is support for the Board's conclusion that the criteria for a variance were met.* ...


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.