Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2012 I Volume 6 i No. 10 <br />regulating other surfaces such as T-shirts or hats. <br />Variance odification—Restaurant <br />Seeks Modification to Hours -of - <br />operation Condition in Original <br />Variance <br />Restaurant claims increased competition and the <br />economic downturn established a change in <br />circumstances warranting the modification <br />Citation: German v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2012 WL 1150785 (Pa. <br />Commw. Ct. 2012) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (04/09/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />there was a change in circumstances sufficient to allow for a modification of <br />conditions attached to a grant of variance, which limited the hours -of - <br />operation of a restaurant/bar. <br />The Background/Facts: In April 2001, the Philadelphia Zoning Board of <br />Appeals (the "Board") granted a variance to Jorgi Mosquera (the "Owner") to <br />construct a two-story addition on property he owned and to use the property <br />for a restaurant, Mixto, Inc ("Mixto"). As a condition to granting that vari- <br />ance, the Board limited Mixto's hours of operation to 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. <br />Monday through Thursday and 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. on Friday, Saturday <br />and Sunday. <br />Seven years later, in April 2008, Mixto applied to the City's Department of <br />Licenses and Inspections (the "Department") for a Zoning/Use Registration <br />Permit. Mixto wanted permission to operate its restaurant and bar until 2:00 <br />a.m. daily. The Department denied the application. <br />Mixto appealed to the Board. Before the Board, Mixto indicated that it was <br />seeking a modification of the Board's original limitations on Mixto's <br />operational hours. <br />The Board found that Mixto was entitled to a modification of the original <br />2001 conditions attached to its grant of variance because Mixto had "sustained <br />[its] burden of proving a proliferation of restaurants open until 2:00 a.m. and <br />the national and local economic contraction, [were] changed circumstances <br />that ma[de] the previously imposed limitation of hours inappropriate." The <br />Board also concluded that permitting Mixto the extended hours of operation <br />"[would] not injure the public because, although some individuals may suffer <br />inconvenience, there w[ould] be at least an equal amount of benefit to them <br />and other members of the public." <br />Carl N. German ("German") objected to the Board's decision. He argued <br />that: (1) the Board erred in concluding that increased competition and a <br />©2012 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />