Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Allegheny County Industrial Development Authority v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment, No. SA 337 of 1983.
David F. Alpern, Alpern and Alpern, for appellant.
Kellen McClendon, Assistant City Solicitor, with him, D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellee.
Judges MacPhail, Barry and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 634]
This is an appeal by the Allegheny County Industrial Development Authority (appellant) from an opinion and order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County affirming the decision of the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment which denied appellant's request for a variance from Section 959.05(c)(4)(1) of the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances (Ordinance), the twenty percent (20%) open space requirement.
In 1979, appellant acquired certain real property at 14 Wood Street in the City of Pittsburgh situated in an area zoned C5-C Golden Triangle District C.*fn1 Appellant leased this property to several individuals (lessees), who planned to renovate the existing thirteen-story building and rebuild the five-story attached extension located thereon.
The lessees applied to the Zoning Administrator of the City of Pittsburgh for a building permit. A site plan was submitted, indicating that a certain portion of the parking area would be reserved for a park, in conformity with the twenty percent (20%) open space requirement of Section 959.05(c)(4)(1). The
[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 635]
site plan was approved on June 5, 1980, and the building permit was issued.
On September 15, 1982, the lessees*fn2 sought an occupancy permit. The Zoning Administrator refused to issue this permit because the lessees sought to use the area previously set aside for the park as additional parking spaces. The lessees then applied for a variance, which was denied by the Board on May 12, 1982. An appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. On December 8, 1983, the Court of Common Pleas sustained the decision of the Board. An appeal to this Court followed.
Our scope of review where, as here, the Court below has taken no additional evidence is limited to a determination of whether the Board abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Somerton Civic Association v. Zoning Board of ...