Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Ford Leasing Development Company v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, No. 4166 March Term, 1977.
Richard J. Goldstein, with him Hershel J. Richman, Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, for appellant.
Michael B. Tolcott, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Barbara S. Gilbert, Assistant City Solicitor, Jill A. Douthett, Deputy City Solicitor, and Alan J. Davis, City Solicitor, for appellee.
John F. Ledwith, Schubert, Mallon, Walheim & deCindis, for intervening appellees.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 146]
Ford Leasing Development Company has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County upholding an order of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia refusing to hear the merits of Ford's application for a variance.
Ford's quest for a variance which would authorize it to use a portion of its property zoned residential for a parking lot accessory to its auto sales and repair enterprise on Germantown Avenue in Philadelphia was the subject of our opinion and order in Kollock v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Philadelphia, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 624,
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 147367]
A.2d 339 (1976). We there held that Ford was not entitled to a variance because having failed to show that its lot could not be used for residential development, it had not met its burden of demonstrating that the provision of Philadelphia's zoning ordinance restricting the use of its lot to residential development imposed an unnecessary hardship.
Our decision was filed December 21, 1976. On January 5, 1977, Ford applied to the Board of Adjustment for the same variance which was the subject of Kollock. The Board of Adjustment conducted a hearing but limited the evidence to matters relevant to the factual issue of whether there had been a material change of circumstances affecting the use of Ford's residentially zoned land since the earlier application. The Board found that Ford failed to show a material change of circumstances and that the new application must fail on the basis of its Rule III(10), providing:
Except by special permission of the Board, no rehearing will be permitted, after a final determination by the Board, or by a Court on appeal therefrom, for one (1) year from the date of such final determination. In addition, no rehearing will be permitted after a final determination by the Board, or by a Court on appeal therefrom, until the premises in question have been brought ...