# Van Sciver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · July 2, 1959 · 396 Pa. 646

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703761

## Case

- **Full name:** Van Sciver, Appellant, v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 2, 1959
- **Citations:** 396 Pa. 646
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cohen
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok, McBride
- **Cited by:** 27 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/9703761

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9703761. Public record. Not legal advice.