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.

CITY PITTSBURGH v. ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENT CITY PITTSBURGH (12/30/87)

decided: December 30, 1987.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANT
v.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, DOM ZULLO AND IRENE DALE, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of City of Pittsburgh v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, Dom Zullo and Irene Dale, No. S.A. 1505 of 1984.

COUNSEL

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

William R. Grove, Hollinshead and Mendelson, for appellees, Zullo and Dale.

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

Author: Colins

[ 112 Pa. Commw. Page 247]

City of Pittsburgh (appellant) appeals the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which affirmed the decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh (Board) granting Dom Zullo and Irene Dale (appellees) variances to use a four-story building at 5838-5838 1/2 Alderson Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in an R-4 multiple family residential district, as a fifteen-unit multiple family dwelling with an outdoor parking stall in front of the building and six remote outdoor parking stalls located on other property owned by appellees.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Appellees had applied to the Pittsburgh Office of Zoning Administrator for occupancy permits on two prior occasions for the property which is the subject of

[ 112 Pa. Commw. Page 248]

    the instant case.*fn1 On both occasions, appellees' applications were denied.

Before the four-story building located at 5838-5838 1/2 was converted into its current state of a fifteen-unit dwelling, the structure contained seven units. This conversion was effectuated before a permit allowing such conversion was granted to appellees.

Following their illegal construction activities, appellees were advised that they would have to meet the requirements of the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances (Code) before an occupancy permit could be issued. Included among the deficiencies was the lack of necessary on-site parking.

Appellees subsequently submitted an application which proposed seven (7) parking stalls on a property in which one of the appellees held an equitable interest at 5831 Morrowfield Avenue, a non-contiguous site. The Board advised that the access to the remote parking ...


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.