|
|
07-15-2008, 10:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Court backs neighbors' objection to Rita's Water Ice
Here is an except from the Commonwealth Court's decision on the application of Rita's Water Ice for a store on Grays Ferry..... MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: July 8, 2008 Kyle N. Thompson et al1 (Objectors) appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) affirming the decision of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) granting Jeffrey S. White (White)2 a three-year temporary use variance to run a commercial business on his property in a residential neighborhood. We reverse because White has failed to establish that the property cannot be developed for a permitted use in the zoning district in which the property is located. White applied to the Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspection for a zoning permit and/or use registration permit to use the property located at 2509 Grays Ferry Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as a Rita’s Water Ice Stand which would serve custard, water ice, non-alcoholic beverages and soft pretzels. The property, which is at the intersections of Grays Ferry, South 25th Street and Christian Streets, is zoned R-10A Residential and is irregularly shaped in a triangle that is approximately 61 feet by 84 feet by 56 feet with an overall size of 1,700 square feet. ... In response, multiple Objectors testified against the proposed commercial use. Kyle Thompson objected to the grant of the variance stating that a commercial use would cause people to gather, making noise and more traffic. He disagreed that a residential house could not be built because it was a big lot. Anna Hoskins-Brown testified that she lived across the street from the proposed Rita’s and stated that there was a vacant lot at 2429 Grays Ferry which was a smaller footprint and was zoned for a house. She stated that the lot was for sale for over $700,000 and construction was ready to commence. Brian Bellus testified that a neighbor’s windows being blocked out should not have been an issue in deciding whether a home could be built on the lot because all the windows in the South Philadelphia rowhouse style were always blocked out by the accompanying lot. He also did not like the idea of people loitering in the neighborhood because they might sell drugs and fights would break out. Sharif Abdula speculated that the water ice stand would cause a lot of destruction to the point that people from other neighborhoods would come to rob the store after it was closed. Finally, Amber Best voiced concerns regarding the degradation of property values, especially after she had just purchased property in the community just one year ago and houses were being refurbished and selling for up to $700,000. White has failed to meet his burden for a commercial use variance in a residential neighborhood. ... Accordingly, because the Board improperly granted the use variance when the record established that the property could be used to build a residence, the order of the trial court is reversed. ________________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, JUDGE http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost...D07_7-8-08.pdf 
|
|
07-15-2008, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
...and PA Supreme Ct. considers another zoning issue
Here's another issue slowly making its way through the courts:
In 2004, the Assembly in Harrisburg modified the Home Rule Enabling Act, effectively nullifying a Philadelphia ordinance that allowed any taxpayer to challenge a zoning decision in the courts. Yesterday, the PA Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that challenge the Assembly's action as unconstitutional. The cases are: Spahn v. Zoning Board http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/PublicR...011:42:31%20AM and Society Createed to Reduce Urban Blight v. Zoning Board http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/PublicR...011:44:56%20AM
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
