Polizzi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

218 A.2d 226, 420 Pa. 405, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 773
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 22, 1966
DocketAppeal, 107
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 218 A.2d 226 (Polizzi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Polizzi v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 218 A.2d 226, 420 Pa. 405, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 773 (Pa. 1966).

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The owners of real estate at 4231 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, extending back to Sansom Street, applied to the Philadelphia board of adjustment for a variance to permit the use of the property as a six-family dwelling, all the units to be apartments with separate baths and kitchen facilities. The property was then being used legally under a variance allowed in 1940 for nine units (two housekeeping units and seven rooming units).

The portion of the property fronting on Walnut Street is zoned R5, and multiple family occupancy is not permitted in such a zone. The rear 94 feet of the *407 over-all 194 feet of the property, going back to Sansom Street, is zoned R9, and multiple family occupancy is permitted in such a zone.

The board of adjustment allowed the variance requested, and appellant, the next door neighbor, whose property contains six apartments, appealed to the court below which, without taking testimony, affirmed the action of the board of adjustment. We allowed an appeal under Rule 68%.

Since the court below took no additional testimony, our function is to determine whether the board of adjustment clearly abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Mulac Appeal, 418 Pa. 207, 210 A. 2d 275 (1965); Cleaver v. Bd. of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 367, 200 A. 2d 408 (1964); Jasy Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, 413 Pa. 563, 198 A. 2d 854 (1964). Finding neither a clear abuse of discretion nor an error of law in the determination of the board of adjustment, its conclusion will be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice Musmanno dissents.

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

Related

Spahr-Alder Group v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
581 A.2d 1002 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1990)
Dziedzic v. Zoning Hearing Board
22 Pa. D. & C.3d 216 (Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, 1980)
Springton Tennis & Raquet Club v. Zoning Hearing Board
65 Pa. D. & C.2d 546 (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, 1974)
Machles v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
57 Pa. D. & C.2d 172 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1971)
Arena v. Norristown Borough Zoning Board of Adjustment
276 A.2d 838 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Lombardo v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
56 Pa. D. & C.2d 307 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1970)
O'NEILL v. Zoning Bd. of Adj.
254 A.2d 12 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Exton Quarries, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
228 A.2d 169 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 A.2d 226, 420 Pa. 405, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polizzi-v-zoning-board-of-adjustment-pa-1966.