Opinion

Van Sciver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

  • 396 Pa. 646
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Jul 2, 1959
Status
Published
Author
Cohen
On the bench
Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok, McBride
Cited by
27 cases

Variance conditions, inter alia , limiting a self-serve laundromat's unmanned nature and operating hours in the interest of crime prevention nevertheless constituted unreasonable "intermeddling with the applicant's ownership of his property."

How later courts described this case

  • Variance conditions, inter alia , limiting a self-serve laundromat's unmanned nature and operating hours in the interest of crime prevention nevertheless constituted unreasonable "intermeddling with the applicant's ownership of his property."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Concurring Opinion by

Mr. Justice Cohen :

I concur in the result. The Philadelphia Code of General Ordinances designates two types of laundry facilities, to wit: “hand laundry or agency” in an “A” Commercial District (Sect. 14-303m) and a “laundry (steam)” in a General Industrial District (Sect. 14-503q). Although zoning legislators should keep *658 abreast of the constant economic and social changes occurring in their community, the Philadelphia City Council unfortunately did not contemplate this type of activity, and so the ordinance contains no mention or provision which covers a “laundromat.” In addition, while the appropriate legislative body is authorized to enact zoning classifications, courts are loathe to interfere unless there is an abuse of discretion resulting in a classification bearing little or no relation to public health, safety, morals or general welfare. We must, therefore, interpret the zoning ordinance as it exists.

The activity in the instant case can be characterized as one that is ancillary to the use of a residency since it contains characteristics attributed to the householder’s comfort. A review of the Philadelphia zoning scheme reveals that consumer facilities or household services are located generally in a zoning classification denominated “A” Commercial. Therefore, even though a “laundromat” was not a contemplated activity when the Philadelphia City Council passed the zoning ordinance, its characteristics are so reflective of consumer and home owner necessities that it should be permitted in an “A” Commercial District.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.