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.

ROBERT I. MALAKOFF AND CAROLE E. MALAKOFF v. BOARD ADJUSTMENT CITY PITTSBURGH AND 568 SOUTH AIKEN CORPORATION AND J.D.J. ASSOCIATES (02/16/83)

decided: February 16, 1983.

ROBERT I. MALAKOFF AND CAROLE E. MALAKOFF, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS
v.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH AND 568 SOUTH AIKEN CORPORATION AND J.D.J. ASSOCIATES, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Robert I. Malakoff and Carole E. Malakoff, his wife v. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh v. 568 South Aiken Corporation, and J.D.J. Associates, No. SA 267 of 1980.

COUNSEL

William R. Grove, Jr., for appellants.

Charles M. Means, with him Seymour J. Schafer, Markel, Schafer & Means, for appellees.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle. Judge Williams, Jr. dissents.

Author: Doyle

[ 72 Pa. Commw. Page 110]

Robert I. Malakoff and Carole E. Malakoff (Appellants) bring this appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which affirmed the decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh (Board) to grant certain special exceptions and variances to 568 South Aiken Avenue Corporation and J.D.J. Associates, (Intervenors, hereinafter Applicant).

[ 72 Pa. Commw. Page 111]

Applicant is the owner of the subject property, 568 South Aiken Avenue, which is located in an R-2, two-family residential district in the seventh ward of the City of Pittsburgh. The property is bounded on the east by South Aiken Avenue, on the north by a railroad right of way, on the west and south by residential dwellings. The front or eastern portion of the property is improved with a vacant brick structure, which is six stories in the front and four stories in the rear. This structure was last occupied approximately six years ago as service/sales offices and for warehousing/storage purposes; both of these uses are nonconforming. To the rear of this structure, on the western portion of the property, there is situated an unimproved lot having no street access.

Applicant sought permission from the Board to reconstruct the warehouse to accommodate business and professional offices and, further, to erect a four story parking garage on the vacant lot. Following a hearing, the Board rendered its decision which granted Applicant certain relief which can be summarized as follows:

1. A special exception under Section 909.06(b)(5) of the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances (Code) to change the occupancy from a nonconforming use (warehouse building) to a new nonconforming use (professional and business use).

2. A special exception under Section 909.06(b)(17) of the Code to rehabilitate the existing structure and to erect a parking garage on the rear lot.

3. A variance from 20 feet to six inches in a portion of the north side yard requirement.

4. A variance to increase the special exception limitation which restricts the enlargement of a nonconforming structure to 25% of 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.