although parties and issues were the same, zoning board at second proceeding could grant variance it had denied several years earlier
How later courts described this case
- although parties and issues were the same, zoning board at second proceeding could grant variance it had denied several years earlier
- the law of the case is established only by a decision of an appellate court
- property was completely landlocked
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*364 Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Cohen:
Eon-Jeff Corp., intervening appellee, acquired three separate parcels each with its own zoning. On a previous variance application the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County determined that any change in zoning lies not with the courts but with City Council. Since that time, City Council did change other surrounding land but did not change the zoning of the intervenor’s land.
I cannot see how the failure of City Council to change appellee’s land generates a proper condition for the grant of a variance. Here again the power of zoning reserved to the legislative body is exercised by the courts in violation of law. I would reverse.
I dissent.