Poster Advertising Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment

• Citation: 408 Pa. 248,182 A.2d 521
• Parties: POSTER ADVERTISING COMPANY, Inc., and Edwin J. Dopkis, Intervenor, Appellants, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
• Decision Date: 28 June 1962
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 521

182 A.2d 521 408 Pa. 248 POSTER ADVERTISING COMPANY, Inc., and Edwin J. Dopkis,
Intervenor, Appellants,
v.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. June 28, 1962.

[408 Pa. 249]

Page 522

Edward R. Becker, Becker & Becker, Philadelphia, for appellants.

James L. Stern, Deputy City Sol., Philadelphia, Lenard L. Wolffe, Asst. City Sol., Matthew W. Bullock, Jr., Asst. City Sol., David Berger, City Sol., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, and O'BRIEN, JJ.

EAGEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County affirming a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Edward J. Dopkis is the owner of a small vacant piece of land on the north corner of Aramingo Avenue and Bermuda

Page 523

Street in the City of Philadelphia. The land has a front of 14 feet, 7 inches on Bermuda Street. The side lines are approximately 30 feet and 20 feet in depth respectively. The rear line abuts a blank wall of a building used as a residence.

The lot originally ran to a depth of approximately 100 feet and was improved with a residence building. In 1955, the city condemned approximately two-thirds of the land included in the lot for the purposes of laying[408 Pa. 250] and relocating Aramingo Avenue, so that the land after the taking was reduced to its present dimensions. ¹ As a result of the taking the owner was paid money damages, which was the difference in the market value thereof before and after the taking.

Poster Advertising Company subsequently leased the land remaining, and now involved, from the owner, Dopkis, and applied for a variance for the erection of two outdoor advertising signs thereon, the signs each to be 6 feet by 12 feet, erected 3 feet off the ground. Since the land is zoned 'D-1' Residential, under which classification outdoor advertising signs are not permitted, the variance was refused by the zoning administrator, and later by the Board of Adjustment. The board concluded that: (a) the land involved can be used for residential purposes; (b) the owner of the land received adequate compensation for the value of the entire lot in the condemnation proceedings, hence there is no hardship present; (c) the proposed use would be against the public interest and constitute 'a commercial inroad in a predominantly residential district'; and, (d) the health, safety and general welfare of the immediate neighborhood would be adversely [408 Pa. 251]...