# Best v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 1958 · 393 Pa. 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698046

## Case

- **Full name:** Best, Appellant, v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 2, 1958
- **Citations:** 393 Pa. 106; 141 A.2d 606; 1958 Pa. LEXIS 330
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bell
- **Judges:** Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno, Arnold, Cohen
- **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698046

## Opinion text

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell :
The sole question in this case is whether the lower Court abused its discretion in failing to grant a variance. If I had been a member of the board of adjustment or of the Court below, I would have voted to grant a variance under the authority of Michener Ap peal, 382 Pa. 401 , 115 A. 2d 367 , which correctly enunciates the applicable law, pages 406-407: “The law is well established that a variance may be granted only where a property is subjected to a hardship unique or peculiar to itself as distinguished from one arising from the impact of the zoning regulations on the entire district.”
However, I cannot say that the lower Court committed a manifest abuse of discretion and therefore I must concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.
*120 All the rest of the majority opinion which deals with the constitutionality of the ordinance as applicable to petitioner’s property, is unnecessary and is obiter dicta.' It proclaims a doctrine which is in violation of all the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, namely, unlimited police power with its derivative omnipotent and all-exclusive “general welfare.” ■ . .
I vehemently dissent:from this part of the-opinion for the reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in Bilbar Construction Co. v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustment, 393 Pa. 62 .
" Mr. Justice Musmanno and Mr. Justice Benjamin R. Jones join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9698046. Public record. Not legal advice.