Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in the case of Gloria Lee v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia and The City of Philadelphia, No. 2170 February Term, 1984.
Ralph David Samuel, with him, Jean R. Sternlight, Samuel & Ballard, P.C., for appellant.
Joy J. Bernstein, Assistant City Solicitor, for appellees.
Judges Rogers, Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
This is an appeal by Gloria Lee (Appellant) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) which quashed an appeal
taken by Appellant from an order of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia (Board) denying Appellant's request for a rehearing.
In 1982, Appellant filed an application for a variance for her property at 638 South 60th Street in Philadelphia which was denied by the Board on October 1, 1982. On October 7, 1982, Appellant filed a request for a rehearing which the Board denied on October 29. On November 1, 1982 Appellant filed an appeal with the trial court which was never perfected because service was not made and Appellant withdrew the notice of appeal on October 12, 1983. On January 27, 1984 Appellant filed a second request for a rehearing from the original denial of the application for a variance which was again denied by the Board. On February 15, 1984, Appellant filed an appeal in the trial court from the Board's order denying her second request for a rehearing. The Board filed a motion to quash the appeal as untimely. The trial court granted the motion to quash, holding that a denial of a request for a rehearing was not an appealable order and that the appeal had to be taken from the original order denying the variance. Since the original order was issued in October of 1982 and the present appeal to the trial court was not filed until February of 1984, the trial court quashed the appeal as untimely. This appeal followed.
Appellant now argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her appeal as untimely. She essentially argues that a denial of a request for a rehearing is an appealable order and because her appeal from the Board's order denying her second request for a rehearing was filed within thirty days, it was timely. Appellant specifically states that she is not seeking to appeal from the October 29, 1982 order of the Board denying her application for a variance, rather, she states that if she is successful on this appeal, the
greatest relief to which she would be entitled would be a rehearing.
In Kravitz v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 415 Pa. 97, 202 A.2d 64 (1964), the applicant therein filed a request for a use certificate which was denied by the Board. Eight days later, the applicant filed an application for rehearing which the Board denied ten days later. The applicant then filed an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia less than thirty days after the Board's order denying the rehearing but forty-one days after the original order denying the use certificate. At the time of the Kravitz decision, as now, appeals from orders of the ...