Opinion
May 27, 1957.
June 28, 1957.
Zoning — Nonconforming use — Expansion — Zoning board of adjustment — Discretion — Abuse.
Where it appeared that a property owner conducted a dairy business on his land which constituted a nonconforming use under a zoning ordinance; and that the zoning board of adjustment refused his request for a building permit to build a loading platform; and it further appeared that the enclosing of the loading platform would not be an expansion of the dairy business but simply an enclosure of the loading and unloading activity and would result in eliminating many of the undesirable elements of the loading and unloading of milk in the open without adversely affecting any of the nearby residents; and it further appeared that the municipal health requirements required that fluid milk tanks be loaded and unloaded entirely within a closed building, it was Held that the court below had properly decided that the zoning board of adjustment committed an abuse of its discretion in refusing the request for the building permit.
Before, JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 47, March T., 1957, from order of County Court of Allegheny County, 1955, No. A-1690, in case of E. C. Schneider, Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of The Borough of Whitehall, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 8 Pa. D. C.2d 539.
Appeal by property owner from decision of zoning board of adjustment refusing to grant a variance permit for building. Before McBRIDE, J.
Order entered directing board to issue building permit. Zoning board appealed.
Robert A. Jarvis, with him Beck, McGinnis Jarvis, for appellant. Henry E. Rea, Jr., with him Metz, McClure McAlister, for appellee.
This appeal involves the expansion of a nonconforming use. The principles governing the increase or extension or expansion of a nonconforming use are well settled. See Firth v. Scherzberg, 366 Pa. 443, 77 A.2d 443; Humphreys v. Stuart Realty Corp., 364 Pa. 616, 73 A.2d 407; Peirce Appeal, 384 Pa. 100, 119 A.2d 506; Blanarik Appeal, 375 Pa. 209, 100 A.2d 58; Gilfillan's Permit, 291 Pa. 358, 140 A. 136.
We have examined the record and find no manifest abuse of discretion or error of law. The order of the Court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Lois MARY McBRIDE, which is reported in 8 Pa. D. C.2d 539. Appellant to pay the costs.