Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Allegheny County; Honorable Ralph J. Cappy, Judge.
D.R. Pellegrini, City Sol., Gretchen G. Donaldson, Assoc. Sol., Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Melvin P. Gold, Welch & Gold, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Crumlish, Jr., President Judge, Colins, J., and Barbieri, Senior Judge.
[ 126 Pa. Commw. Page 303]
The City of Pittsburgh's Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) denied Ronald and Marlene Cassidy's (Cassidys) special exception request. The Allegheny County Common Pleas Court reversed. We reverse the trial court.
The Cassidys -- owners of a detached, two-story home in a residentially zoned, single-family neighborhood -- sought a special exception to convert their basement into a beauty shop.
The Board considered testimony from neighbors who supported the Cassidys' request, and from the adjacent owners, who testified that the beauty shop would disrupt the neighborhood. The common pleas court reversed the Board's denial of the Cassidys' special exception request, concluding that the abutting neighbors' testimony was premised on their inconvenience and not that of the entire neighborhood. The court granted the Cassidys a special exception.
The City contends that the trial court erred because a beauty shop is not a valid home occupation, and because the Board's denial was supported by substantial evidence.
The City of Pittsburgh's zoning ordinance permits special exceptions in residentially zoned districts subject to enumerated conditions. Section 929.05(b) of the Pittsburgh Code permits a "home occupation, carried on in a dwelling unit by the resident thereof as a customary and accessory use." Section 909.06(b)(8) of the Code restricts the use of a residence as a home occupation:
[ 126 Pa. Commw. Page 304]
(8) Home occupation, in R [Residential] other than R1-A [One family Residential], A1 [Commercial/Residential] and AP [Planned Commercial/Residential Unit Development] Districts carried on in a dwelling unit by the ...