Legal Opinion · Dissent

South of South Street Neighborhood Ass'n v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 13, 2012Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

PRESIDENT Judge PELLEGRINI.

I respectfully dissent because the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (Zoning Board) Findings of Fact do not support the grant of a variance in this case. As noted by the majority, the Zoning Board stated two reasons why it concluded that Dung Phat LLC had established unnecessary hardship: (1) the building would require extensive reconstruction to be suitable for a modern industrial use; and (2) Dung Phat LLC had unsuccessfully tried to sell the property for an industrial use over several years.

To establish unnecessary hardship, an…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Arter v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of AdjustmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Philadelphia v. Earl Scheib Realty Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Spc Co. v. Zoning Bd. of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Arter v. PHILADELPHIA ZONING BD. OF ADJUSTMENTSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Rees v. Zoning Hearing Board of Indiana TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API