Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County in the case of Rose Serban, Nicholas Serban and S. Louis Serban v. The Zoning Hearing Board of The City of Bethlehem, County of Northampton, Pennsylvania and Joseph T. Raymond and Tony Agusta and Michael F. Ronca and Sons, Inc., No. 1982-C-4804.
Edmund G. Hauff, Hauff & Turczyn, for appellants.
Philip M. Hof, for appellee.
Raymond J. DeRaymond, for intervenors, Joseph T. Raymond and Tony Agusta.
Thomas J. Maloney, Maloney & Danyi, for intervenor, Michael F. Ronca and Sons., Inc.
Judges Williams, Jr., MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 559]
This is an appeal from the order of the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Bethlehem (Board) which granted two dimensional variances to Michael F. Ronca & Sons, Inc.
Michael F. Ronca & Sons (Owner) is the equitable owner of a property at 411 Webster Street in Bethlehem,
[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 560]
Pennsylvania, upon which a five-story structure is located. Originally used for clothing and cigar manufacturing, the property is currently vacant and zoned for commercial and residential uses only. In 1981, Owner was granted variances from the minimum lot size and on-premises parking requirements*fn1 in order to install twenty-three residential units in the structure. Appellants, local landowners,*fn2 appealed to the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas which reversed the Board's decision on December 1, 1981.*fn3
On February 10, 1982, Owner filed a new application for variances from minimum lot size and on-premises parking requirements, based upon Owner's revised plan to install only eighteen residential units in the structure. The Board granted the Owner's requested variances,*fn4 and the Court of Common Pleas later affirmed without taking additional evidence. It is this decision of the Court of Common Pleas from which Appellants presently appeal.
Initially Appellants argue that the court's denial of the Owner's request for variances in the 1981 action should have barred consideration of the Owner's present ...