Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2017

Home

May 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin The Background/Facts: Jonathan Bernadino ("Bernadino") owned property (the "Property") in a Residential Single -Family Attached-3 Zoning District ("RSA-3") in the City of Philadelphia (the "City"). The Property consisted of a 126' by 25' lot improved with a semidetached, single-family home. Bernadino wanted to construct a single -car, open- air parking space (i.e., a driveway) in the Property's front yard. The City's Zoning Code (with exceptions not applicable here) prohibited such surface parking spaces in "required front, side, and rear yards." Because the parking space that Bernadino sought was expressly prohibited on his Property, it was necessary that he seek a variance. Bernadino applied to the City's Department of Licenses and Inspections (the "Department") for a zoning/use registration permit (i.e., a variance). The Department refused Bernadino's request. Bernadino appealed to the City's Zoning Board of Adjustment ("ZBA"). The ZBA granted Bernadino's variance request. In doing so, the ZBA determined that Bernadino's proposal "[met] the requirements for grant of the required variance." Under the City's Zoning Code, an applicant seeking a variance had to prove that "unnecessary hardship" would result if the variance was denied and that the proposed use was "not contrary to the public interest." The ZBA, in addressing variance requests "must also consider the factors set forth in the [Zoning Code]." Essentially, and in summary, "an applicant seeking a variance pursuant to the [Zoning Code] must demonstrate that: (1) the denial of the variance will result in unneces- sary hardship unique to the property; (2) the variance will not adversely impact the public interest; and (3) the variance is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief." Here, the ZBA found that "due to the configuration of the Property and the location of the existing structure, rear[ -]access parking [was] not possible at the site." The ZBA also determined that "[t]he proposed parking, because set back from the street and sized to accommodate only one vehicle, require[d] the least variance necessary to afford relief." Further the ZBA concluded that, "based on the evidence of rec- ord, that denial of the requested variance would result in unnecessary hardship." The ZBA "additionally conclude[d] that the remaining criteria for grant of a variance [were] satisfied," and that "the proposed use not have a negative impact on the public health, safety or welfare, . . . [as the ZBA found that] the proposed parking space [was] consis- tent with surrounding uses, [was] supported by the immediately adjacent neighbors, and [would] result in a net gain in the number of parking spaces on the block." Chestnut Hill Community Association, along with a number of individuals, (collectively, "Chestnut Hill") appealed the ZBA's decision. The trial court affirmed the ZBA's decision, and Chestnut Hill again appealed. 10 © 2017 Thomson Reuters