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.

MARY L. LINCOLN AND ELEANOR J. MANN v. ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT CITY PITTSBURGH. CITY PITTSBURGH (08/21/87)

decided: August 21, 1987.

MARY L. LINCOLN AND ELEANOR J. MANN
v.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH. THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Mary L. Lincoln and Eleanor J. Mann v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, No. SA 730-1984.

COUNSEL

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

William M. Acker, for appellees.

Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Macphail

[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 587]

This is an appeal by the City of Pittsburgh (City) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which reversed a decision of the City of Pittsburgh Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) denying the application of Mary L. Lincoln and Eleanor J. Mann (Owners) for a special exception to operate a personal care residence on the first floor of their property. We reverse.

Owners have owned the premises in question at least since 1977 and have continuously operated a personal care residence on the first floor thereof since that time.*fn1 The premises are located in an R-2 district.*fn2 Two

[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 588]

    apartments are located on both the second and third floors of the premises.

On August 17, 1979, Owners were issued an occupancy permit for the premises for five residential units and four outdoor parking stalls.

In 1982, the Ordinance was amended to provide for personal care residences as a permitted use in R-2 districts as a special exception provided that certain conditions were met. Prior to the effective date of the 1982 amendment, there was no provision in the Ordinance for a personal care residence.

On April 11, 1984, Owners applied for an occupancy permit for the use of their premises as follows:

First floor personal care residence with six clients and one resident manager; second floor, two dwelling units; third floor, two dwelling ...


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.