 |
|
|
|
No. 542 EAL 2004 (Pa. Supreme Court)
Society Created to Reduce
Urban Blight (SCRUB), Mary Cawley Tracy, Councilman David Cohen, Carol
Sander, and Bridesburg Civic Association
v.
Zoning
Hearing Board of Adjustment of the City of Philadelphia, City of
Philadelphia, Arsenal Business Center and Clear Channel Outdoor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case History
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Petition for
Allowance of Appeal on June 19, 2006, thus confirming the
ruling in favor of SCRUB
- The
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for dismissing an appeal filed by
Frankford Arsenal and Clear Channel. In an Order dated June 19,
2006, the Supreme Court, after hearing oral arguments from attorneys
on both sides, decided that the appeal had been “improvidently
granted”.
- August 4, 2005: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted a
Petition of Allowance of Appeal:
ORDER
Per Curiam
AND NOW, this 4th day of August, 2005, the Petition
for Allowance of Appeal is hereby granted, limited to the
following issues:
1. Is a property subject to unnecessary hardship when the
evidence demonstrates that it is burdened by obsolete buildings,
deed restrictions on conversion or demolition of many of the
buildings, severe environmental contamination, more than half a
century of physical decay and over a decade of severe difficulty
in leasing space to tenants, such that the property owner cannot
even service the mortgage payments on the property?
2. Can a variance be denied as contrary to the public
interest solely because the proposed structure does not meet the
strict requirements of the Zoning Code?
-
September 27, 2004: Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the
Court of Common Pleas
- December 5, 2002: Court
of Common Pleas affirmed the ZBA's granting of a variance
- August 2, 2002:
Commonwealth Court vacated the order of the Court of Common Pleas
and remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas with orders that
the case be remanded to the ZBA for the production of Finding of
Fact and Conclusion of Law
- February 6, 2001: Court of
Common Pleas reversed the ZBA decision
- April 21, 2000:
ZBA granted a variance request to erect two outdoor advertising
signs located on the same lot
- October 19, 1999: L&I
denied permit request
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background Information
The Frankford Arsenal business center and Eller Media applied to L & I for a
permit to erect two freestanding double-faced outdoor signs. L & I denied the
application and their decision was appealed to the ZBA. The ZBA granted a
variance by concluding that enforcement of the zoning code would result in an
unnecessary hardship.
The Common Pleas Court reversed the ZBA’s
decision without waiting for the ZBA to provide their findings of fact. Eller
then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which vacated the decision and remanded
the case back to the lower court because the court did not wait for the findings
of fact from the ZBA.On remand, the
ZBA found that this is not an instance of requesting a variance to obtain more
profit from the use of a property, but rather a situation in which an owner
needed some minor relief in order to maintain an historical site that would
otherwise decay for want of viability. The Court of Common Pleas then affirmed
the decision of the ZBA.
The Commonwealth Court then reverse the decision
of the Court of Common Pleas holding that mere evidence that a zoned use is less
financially rewarding then a proposed use is insufficient to justify a variance
and that the multiple, substantial violations of Section 14-1604 demonstrate
that it is contrary to public interest.
The Supreme Court granted a petition of
Allowance of Appeal, to decide the case based on the conditions for undue
hardship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
