Leichthammer v. Board of Adjustment

43 Pa. D. & C. 391, 1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 231
CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
DecidedDecember 15, 1941
Docketno. 36
StatusPublished

This text of 43 Pa. D. & C. 391 (Leichthammer v. Board of Adjustment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leichthammer v. Board of Adjustment, 43 Pa. D. & C. 391, 1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 231 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1941).

Opinion

Dannehower, J.,

Frank 0. Leichthammer and his sister, Evelyn Leichthammer, as joint owners of 311-13 Haws Avenue, situate on the [392]*392southwest corner of Airy Street and Haws Avenue, Borough of Norristown, Montgomery County, Pa., filed this appeal from the decision of the board of adjustment, under section 44-E-9 of the zoning ordinance of the Borough of Norristown, Pa., for the resumption of a nonconforming use of a store building connected with a dwelling as a drug store in a class “C” residence district, “when such nonconforming use has been discontinued for a period exceeding one year and has not been followed by a more restricted use, and when it is not reasonably practicable to utilize the building and lot upon which such building is located for a conforming use”.

At the hearing before the court, appellants presented additional testimony which the court permitted and deemed necessary for a proper disposition of the matter.

The record and testimony disclose that appellants’ property, known as 311-13 Haws Avenue, Norristown, Pa., consists of a three-story brick dwelling and attached thereto a one-story brick store building, which is located on the immediate corner of Airy Street and Haws Avenue. The store building, which is connected to the dwelling by a common wall through which there is a connecting door and also by a cellar, is approximately 25 ft. x 20 ft., containing 450 square feet of floor space, has a large show window on Haws Avenue, and a store entrance on the immediate corner.

According to the testimony, these buildings were erected about fifty years ago, and the store building has always been conducted as a corner drug store. In 1928 Austen Streeper, who with his wife lived in this dwelling, and for almost 20 years conducted this drug store, died. His widow, who continued to reside in the dwelling, closed the store doors, but continuously from 1928 until 1938, when she died, sold many articles of the stock, including medicines, cotton, bandages, etc., to her friends and customers, who entered the store [393]*393through her private residence. The stock, fixtures, soda-fountain, show-cases, prescription counter and furnishings remained in the store in the same condition, although the store entrance remained closed. Many people knew they could purchase, and did purchase, many articles of the stock, and former customers very frequently called upon her for certain medicines and prescriptions which they knew she had in the store. She tried unsuccessfully to rent this store building as a drug store.

In October 1940, two years after her death, in order to settle the estate, public sale was made of the stock and fixtures and also the real estate. Appellants purchased the real estate for $6,650 and immediately converted the dwelling into a three-family apartment house at a cost of $6,500. This property has been appraised at $13,000 and is assessed at $6,300. The store building still remains vacant.

In September 1933, the zoning ordinance was enacted, and the revised and amended zone map of the Borough of Norristown (admitted in evidence) approved by town council on April 1, 1941, designates this store building as a nonconforming use in a class “C” residence district.

In June 1941, the building inspector, and thereafter the board of adjustment, refused appellants’ application for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to reestablish the discontinued use of this store building as a drug store. The board of adjustment realized, and stated in their decision, that there existed sufficient “exceptional circumstances” to warrant their consideration of the appeal from the decision of the building inspector. However, the board refused the certificate because it was not convinced that there was any exceptional practical difficulty in developing the property for professional use or residential purpose according to the permissive use in that district, or any undue hardship would result from the strict application of the zoning provisions.

[394]*394Under the provisions of the zoning ordinance, this store building, in a class “C” residence district, may be used for any use permitted in an “A” or “B” residence district, also multiple dwellings, lodging or boarding house, apartment hotel, public or semi-public institution, fraternal.or clubhouse, etc. The accessory uses permitted in the district are those customarily incident to the above uses, such as an office or studio, for home occupations, private garage or stable.

Section 44-E of the zoning ordinance provides:

“Where", by reason of topographical conditions, district border line situations, immediately adjoining existing developments or because of other exceptional circumstances, the strict application of any provisions of this Ordinance would result in exceptional practical difficulty or undue hardship upon the owner of any specific property, the Board, in passing upon appeals, shall have the power to vary or modify such strict application or to interpret the meaning of this Ordinance so as to relieve such difficulty or hardship; provided that such variance, modification or interpretation shall remain in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance, so that the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community shall be conserved and substantial justice done. In granting variations, the Board, if it deem proper to the carrying out of the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, may impose such reasonable and additional stipulations and conditions such as increasing the open spaces surrounding a hospital or similar institutions as will in its judgment, better fulfill the purpose of the Ordinance. In the exercise of this power the board may, among other variances, modifications and interpretations, authorize a permit to be issued.”

“Sec. 9. For resumption of a non-conforming use of a building in a residence district when such non-conforming use has been discontinued for a period exceeding one (1) year and has not been followed by a more [395]*395restricted use, when it is not reasonably practicable to utilize the lot upon which such building is located for a conforming use.”

Appellants contend that, under these provisions of the zoning ordinance, the board abused its discretion in refusing to grant the application, because the store building was erected, used and peculiarly adapted as a store, and to refuse such use would result in exceptional practical difficulty and undue hardship under all the surrounding circumstances.

With this contention we must agree. The judges have viewed the store in question and its surroundings. The testimony, as well as the view, reveals that the store building was constructed, used for almost 40 years, and is peculiarly adapted to the particular use as a drug store. Within a radius of approximately 150 yards of the store in question there are three apartment houses, three doctor’s offices, two large fraternal homes, a funeral home, a large gasoline filling station, a tire store, an automobile sales room and service station, a restaurant, a large stable, 10 or 12 garages, an architect’s office, and a large fire company building. Under these circumstances, we fail to see how a corner drug store will adversely affect the public health, morals, general welfare, or the spirit of the ordinance, and owing to the special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will, in our opinion, result in unnecessary hardship and exceptional practical difficulty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Pa. D. & C. 391, 1941 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leichthammer-v-board-of-adjustment-pactcomplmontgo-1941.