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.

JOSEPH MOROS AND MARY MOROS v. CITY PITTSBURGH (07/01/87)

decided: July 1, 1987.

JOSEPH MOROS AND MARY MOROS, APPELLANTS
v.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Joseph Moros and Mary Moros, his wife v. City of Pittsburgh, Zoning Board of Adjustment, No. SA 756 of 1984.

COUNSEL

Henry Miller, III, for appellants.

Kellen McClendon, Assistant City Solicitor, with him, D. R. Pellegrini, City Solicitor, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Palladino, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 204]

Joseph and Mary Moros were denied a variance for non-conforming use for two properties by the Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Moroses sought a fifteen-unit occupancy permit for the combined properties. The Allegheny County Common Pleas Court affirmed. We affirm.

Mary Moros bought 2128 Carey Way in 1947 and the second property, 2130 Carey Way, in 1973. The properties are presently classified R-4 multi-family residential. Each unit contains a sleeping room, a hotplate and refrigerator. One bathroom serves every two units. They are occupied primarily by state hospital patients under the Allegheny County Mental Health and Rehabilitation Program.

Where the trial court, in reviewing a zoning appeal, has taken no evidence in addition to that which was presented

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 205]

    to the zoning hearing board, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court instructs:

[T]he scope of our review is limited to determining whether the Board committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law. . . . We may conclude that the Board abused its discretion only if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. . . . By 'substantial evidence' we mean such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Valley View Civic Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550, 554-55, 462 A.2d 637, 639-40 (1983) (citations omitted).

The record reveals that from 1923 to 1958 the properties were zoned light industrial, which required ...


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.