Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

' Z.B. July 15, 1995- Page 3 family res£dential zone of PhiladelPhia, Pa. For about 260 feet, the lot was bounded by Welsh Road. In 1990, Thackeray filed with the city planning commission a proposed subdivision plan. It proposed dividing the property .. six lots by building a street that ended in a cul-de-sac. The new street would run perpendicular to Welsh Road. Four of the lots would be interior lots that faced only the cul-de- sac, and the other two would border Welsh Road. The city code required all single-family dwelling lots to have street front- age. It defined a "street" as a strip of land intended for vehicular or pedestrian traffic, that was confirmed on the city plan. For a street to be confirmed on the city plan, the owner had to dedicate it to the city and get the city council's approval. Thack~ray's proposed cul-de-sac was not yet on the city plan, and. the inte- rior lots could not meet the minimum street frontage requirements until it was. The planning commission approved Thackeray's plan. Thackeray was told to discuss with the city's streets and water departments the drafting of neces- sary ordinances to put the proposed cul-de-sac on the city plan. Instead, Thackeray applied to the Department of Licenses and Inspection for a zoning permit and a use registration permit. The department denied the request be- cause Thackeray did not follow normal procedures or submit the proposed street for the city council's approval before seeking the permits. Because of these failures, the department concluded that the interior lots did not have the required street frontage. Thackeray asked the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance from the frontage requirements. The board granted the variance, finding the proposed deviation was minimal. It also decided Thackeray did not have to show hard- ship because the requested variance was "dimensional." The board conditioned the variance on compliance with city specifications and Thackeray's dedica- tion of the street to the city. Zimmerman, a neighbor, appealed the variance. The trial court affirmed, and Zimmerman appealed again. The appeals court disagreed that the proposed deviation was minimal, but it affirmed the variance because it found Thackeray would suffer a hardship (the interior lots would be landlocked) if the city re- fused to accept dedication of the street. The court said Thackeray's hardship would be created by the city council's refusal, not by Thackeray 's own actions. Zimmerman appealed again, claiming the appeals court was wrong because there was no evidence of any hardship. He also claimed the court's finding effectively took away the city council's power to accept dedication of streets. DECISION: Reversed, in favor of Zimmerman. The board should not have granted Thackeray a variance, so its decision was reversed. The appeals court correctly overturned the board's decision that Thackeray's variance request was dimensional. The lots were not just a little smaller than the ordinance required -- in fact, they met dimensional requirements. Their