IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Appeal of Chestnut Hill :

Community Association, Chestnut :

Hill Baptist Church, James Bruno, :

Maureen Pie-Bruno, Eileen Sisle, :

Kenneth Schotsch, and Devon :

Cargerry :

:

v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2022

: Argued: April 9, 2024

City of Philadelphia Zoning Board :

of Adjustment and 10 Bethlehem Pike :

Property Owner, LLC :

:

Appeal of: 10 Bethlehem Pike :

Property Owner, LLC :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION 

BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: June 4, 2024

10 Bethlehem Pike Property Owner, LLC (Owner) appeals an order of 

the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) granting the land 

use appeal of Chestnut Hill Community Association, Chestnut Hill Baptist Church, 

James Bruno, Maureen Pie-Bruno, Eileen Sisle, Kenneth Schotsch, and Devon 

Cargerry (collectively, Objectors). Specifically, the trial court held that the City of 

Philadelphia (City) Zoning Board of Adjustment (Zoning Board) erred in affirming 

the zoning permit issued to Owner by the City Department of Licenses and 

Inspections (Department of L&I) because Owner’s project will not comply with the 

street line setbacks required by law. On appeal, Owner argues that the trial court 
2

erred in its interpretation of the front yard setback requirements set forth in the 

Philadelphia Zoning Code.

1

 Upon review, we reverse the trial court.

Background

At issue is a corner parcel of land at 10 Bethlehem Pike in the City 

(Property), which is located in the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use-2 District 

(CMX-2 District). As a corner lot, the Property fronts on Bethlehem Pike and on 

Summit Street. Previously operated as a gas station, the Property has been vacant 

for some time. Owner purchased the Property, demolished the existing structures, 

and applied for a by-right zoning permit to construct a 45-foot-tall building for 

mixed commercial and residential use, as authorized in the CMX-2 District. On 

April 26, 2021, the Department of L&I issued the zoning permit allowing for

[r]etail sale of food, beverages and groceries from basement 

thr[ough] first floor with multi-family household living (thirtythree (33) dwelling units) (five (5) units using green roof bonus 

(as per [Zoning] Code Section 14-602(7) and 14-

602(4)(a)[8](.C); six (6) units using moderate income density 

bonus and maximum twenty-two (22) units allowed as per lot 

size) from second (2nd) floor through fifth (5th) floors with 

twelve (12) 1A class bicycle spaces in an accessible route and 

with eight (8) underground parking spaces including with one (1) 

van accessible space.

Reproduced Record at 18a (R.R.__). The zoning permit approved the “size and 

location” of the project “as shown in the application.” R.R. 17a. 

Objectors appealed to the Zoning Board. Objectors maintained that 

Section 14-701(1)(c) of the Zoning Code requires a 35-foot front yard setback along 

1

See Philadelphia County, Pa., Zoning Code, as amended (2012) (ZONING CODE).
3

both Bethlehem Pike and Summit Street.

2

 However, Owner’s zoning plans provided 

no setbacks along either street frontage. 

Objectors argued that because the Property is a corner lot facing two 

streets, it has two front yards and two setbacks from the street line. The Zoning 

Code provides that “[w]here any block frontage on one side of a street is divided 

into two or more districts, no structure shall be erected nearer to the street line than 

is permitted under the regulations for the district that covers the largest percentage 

of the street frontage on that block face.” ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(c); R.R. 300a

(emphasis added). The Property sits on a block that is bounded by Bethlehem Pike, 

Summit Street, Prospect Avenue, Evergreen Avenue, and Evergreen Place. While 

the Bethlehem Pike block frontage lies entirely within the CMX-2 District, the 

Summit Street block frontage is divided into three zoning districts: CMX-2, 

Residential Single-Family Attached-2 (RSA-2), and Residential Single-Family 

Detached-1 (RSD-1). The RSD-1 District “covers the largest percentage” of the 

Summit Street block face, and this district requires a 35-foot front yard setback. 

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(c); R.R. 300a. Objectors argued that under Section 14-

701(1)(c), a 35-foot front yard setback applied not only to the Summit Street frontage 

of the Property but also to the Bethlehem Pike frontage.

At the hearing, Objectors presented the testimony of James Bruno and 

Maureen Pie-Bruno, who live in a house on Summit Street adjacent to the Property. 

They opposed the zoning permit because it allowed only a five-footside yard setback 

from the property line they share with Owner. Notes of Testimony, 11/30/2021, at 

31 (N.T.__); R.R. 160a. 

2 Objectors also raised challenges to the dimension of the project’s roof decks and the project’s 

outdoor lighting plan. The Zoning Board rejected Objectors’ challenges, and Objectors did not 

appeal. 
4

Objectors also presented testimony of Daniel Piotrowski, Board 

Chairman of the Chestnut Hill Baptist Church on Bethlehem Pike, located on the 

other side of the Property. Piotrowski testified that the church was founded in 1834 

and has been designated a historic building by the City’s Historical Commission. 

Piotrowski opposed the issuance of the zoning permit because the church “was built 

before there was electricity,” and the proposed building “would block the light 

coming in from the windows.” N.T. 34; R.R. 163a. Piotrowski believed that the 

appropriate side yard setback was 35 feet, not the 10 feet that was approved.

Owner addressed Objectors’ legal challenge. First, the Property is 

located entirely in the CMX-2 District, and this district does not require any front 

yard setback. Second, the Zoning Code provides that where a property is a corner 

lot facing two streets, the Planning Commission may designate one street frontage 

as the “primary frontage.” ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d)(.4)(.a); R.R. 301a. Here, 

the Planning Commission has designated Bethlehem Pike as the Property’s primary 

frontage, and it is governed by the CMX-2 District regulations. In short, the Property 

was not required to have a front yard setback on either Bethlehem Pike or Summit 

Street.

Owner presented expert testimony of Janice Woodcock, architect and 

former director of the City Planning Commission. Woodcock was engaged by 

Owner to investigate Objectors’ legal position and “to determine whether . . . the 

permits were valid as issued[.]” N.T. 36; R.R. 165a. She explained that the Planning 

Commission is authorized under the Zoning Code to determine street frontage, and 

it did so properly in the instant case. Woodcock testified that the Property was 

located in “a very important commercial corridor in Chestnut Hill,” which “has to 

have density in order to take advantage of the infrastructure and transit.” N.T. 39; 
5

R.R. 168a. She opined that Owner’s project was consistent with the Planning 

Commission’s policies.

Owner also presented the testimony of Zachary Frankel, its principal,

and Sergio Coscia, its project architect. Both testified that the Project was designed 

to comply with all applicable zoning requirements so that Owner would secure a byright zoning permit.

The Zoning Board denied Objectors’ appeal. In rejecting their setback 

arguments, the Zoning Board concluded that the Planning Commission properly

designated Bethlehem Pike as the “primary frontage.” Zoning Board Decision, 

Conclusion of Law No. 15(iii)-(iv). Because the Property was zoned CMX-2 and 

fronted on Bethlehem Pike, a block where all properties are in the CMX-2 District, 

a “front yard setback on its Summit Street frontage” was not required. Id., 

Conclusion of Law No. 15(viii). 

Objectors appealed to the trial court, which reviewed the Zoning 

Board’s decision without receiving additional evidence. By order of September 13, 

2022, the trial court reversed the Zoning Board’s decision. 

The trial court agreed with Objectors that under Section 14-701(1)(c)

of the Zoning Code, the setback requirements for the RSD-1 District governed

because the majority of the properties in the block facing Summit Street are located 

in the RSD-1 District. Because the Property had more than one street frontage, the

35-foot front yard setback not only applied to the Property’s frontage on Summit 

Street but also on Bethlehem Pike. 

The trial court concluded that the Planning Commission lacked

authority to designate Bethlehem Pike as the Property’s primary frontage to 

“purposefully exclude the Property’s existing frontage on Summit Street that had 
6

been subject to unambiguous Zoning Code restrictions.” Trial Court Op. at 2. Even 

so, the Planning Commission’s primary frontage designation could not “exclude the 

reality that there are two street facing frontages to this Property.” Id. at 10. The 

word “primary” does not mean “only.” Id. In short, because the Summit Street 

frontage encompassed three separate zoning districts and is predominantly 

residential, a 35-foot front yard setback governed both frontages of the Property.

Owner appealed to this Court.3

Appeal

On appeal, Owner raises three issues, which we combine into one for 

clarity. Owner argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the Zoning 

Code, which specifies that for corner lots fronting more than one street, the “front 

yard requirements of the zoning district shall apply to those street frontages[.]” 

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); R.R. 300a (emphasis added). Here, the Property is a 

corner lot located in the CMX-2 District, and this district does not require any front 

yard setback. Owner contends that the trial court erred in relying on Section 14-

701(1)(c) because the “more specific” provision of the Zoning Code, i.e., Section 

14-701(1)(d), governs. It mandates “that corner lots are subject only to the front 

yard requirements of their zoning district[.]” Owner Brief at 18. 

In further support of its position, Owner observes that to the extent the 

Zoning Code is unclear, it must be resolved in favor of property owners. Owner 

Brief at 19 (citing Kohl v. New Sewickley Township Zoning Hearing Board, 108 

A.3d 961, 968 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)). Further, the Zoning Board’s interpretation of 

3

“Where the trial court receives no additional evidence on appeal from a zoning hearing board’s 

decision, an appellate court’s standard of review is to determine whether the board committed an 

abuse of discretion or an error of law.” Harrisburg Gardens, Inc. v. Susquehanna Township 

Zoning Hearing Board, 981 A.2d 405, 410 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). 
7

the Zoning Code is entitled to deference.4 Imposition of a residential setback 

requirement to a commercially zoned property makes no sense and would frustrate 

the City’s intentions with respect to commercial development. Indeed, the evidence 

established that “good urban design practice” requires that commercial buildings not 

be set back from their frontage in order to be “accessible to pedestrians and bring[] 

life to the sidewalk[.]” N.T. 73; R.R. 202a. Notably, the owners of the neighboring 

properties expressed concern only about the side yard setbacks, not the front yard 

setbacks. 

In response, Objectors argue that the trial court did not err. The Zoning 

Board’s interpretation of the Zoning Code cannot be squared with the plain terms of

the ordinance and, thus, “carries little weight.” Objectors Brief at 14 (citing Azoulay

v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment, 194 A.3d 241, 249 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2018)). The Zoning Code states that where the “block frontage on one side of a 

street is divided into two or more districts,” “the regulations for the district that 

covers the largest percentage of the street frontage on that block face” govern.

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(c); R.R. 300a. Here, the largest percentage of frontage

on the Summit Street block lies in the RSD-1 District, and it requires a 35-foot 

setback. Without this zoning requirement, structures will not line up neatly on a 

block but appear, rather, something like a hair comb with broken teeth.

Objectors concede that the Planning Commission may designate the

primary frontage, but the Property still has two street frontages. That Bethlehem 

4 Owner also challenges the trial court’s assertion that even if the Zoning Board’s determination 

on the front yard setback were correct, a remand to the Zoning Board was required to evaluate 

Objectors’ other challenges to the zoning permit. This was error because Objectors neither argued 

nor presented evidence on their objections to the roof deck or the outdoor lighting plan before 

either the Zoning Board or the trial court. Those issues are waived. Objectors do not defend this 

aspect of the trial court’s decision.
8

Pike is the primary frontage does not exempt the Summit Street frontage from the 

front yard setback requirements of Section 14-701(1)(c). 

Objectors direct the Court to Section 14-602(4)(a)[3] of the Zoning 

Code, titled “Notes for Table 14-602-2.” It states as follows:

[3] In the CMX-2 and CMX-2.5 districts, in order to promote 

active uses at the street level, buildings must contain a use other 

than residential and other than parking along one hundred 

percent (100%) of the ground floor frontage and within the first 

30 ft. of building depth, measured from the front building line. If 

the property is bounded by two or more streets, only the primary 

frontages as designated in §14-701(1)(d)(.4) (Primary Frontage) 

shall be subject to this requirement.

ZONING CODE, 14-602(4)(a)[3]; R.R. 295a (emphasis added).5 This provision 

addresses the ground floor use of a commercial project in the CMX-2 District, but it 

does not state that a primary frontage designation determines the front yard setback. 

Accordingly, Objectors contend that the Planning Commission’s authority to 

designate a primary frontage for properties located in the CMX-2 District is “only 

for the purposes of defining the location of commercial uses; not for the purpose of 

determining yard depth or setbacks.” Objectors Brief at 41.

5 Objectors’ reliance on Section 14-602(4)(a)[3] is somewhat confusing and, in any case, 

misplaced. Section 14-602(4)(a)[3] addresses “uses allowed in commercial districts” specified in

Table 14-602-2. ZONING CODE, Table 14-602-2; R.R. 295a-99a (emphasis added). As such, 

Section 14-602(4)(a)[3] does not address the dimensional requirements for corner lots. The 

dimensional standards for commercial districts are specified in Table 14-701-3 under Chapter 14-

700 of the Zoning Code. See ZONING CODE, Chapter 14-700 (“Development Standards”); R.R. 

330a-18a. Table 14-701-3 is clear that there is no front yard depth requirement in the CMX-2 

District. 
9

Analysis

As an initial matter, we note that “[t]he rules of statutory construction 

apply to ordinances as well as statutes.” In re Holtz, 8 A.3d 374, 378 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2010). The interpretation of a statute or ordinance presents this Court with a pure 

question of law, which is generally subject to plenary review. Northampton Area 

School District v. Zoning Hearing Board of Township of Lehigh, 64 A.3d 1152, 1157 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). The primary objective of statutory interpretation is to 

determine the intent of the legislation. Section 1921 of the Statutory Construction 

Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. §1921. A statute’s plain language generally provides the 

best indication of legislative intent, and, thus, statutory construction begins with 

examination of the text itself. Malt Beverages Distributors Association v. 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 918 A.2d 171, 176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 

With respect to zoning matters, “[u]ndefined terms are given their plain 

meaning, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the landowner and the least restrictive 

use of the land.” Caln Nether Company, L.P. v. Board of Supervisors of Thornbury 

Township, 840 A.2d 484, 491 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). See also Lench v. Zoning Board 

of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 13 A.3d 576, 579 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (ambiguity 

in the zoning ordinance construed in favor of landowner). A zoning ordinance is 

ambiguous if the pertinent provision is susceptible to more than one reasonable 

interpretation, Adams Outdoor Advertising, L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Board of 

Smithfield Township, 909 A.2d 469, 483 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), or when the language 

is “vague, uncertain, or indefinite.” Barasch v. Pennsylvania Public Utility 

Commission, 532 A.2d 325, 332 (Pa. 1987).

Finally, it is well settled that “a zoning hearing board’s interpretation 

of its own zoning ordinance is entitled to great weight and deference . . . . Such 
10

deference is appropriate because a zoning hearing board, as the entity charged with 

administering a zoning ordinance, possesses knowledge and expertise in interpreting 

that ordinance.” Risker v. Smith Township Zoning Hearing Board, 886 A.2d 727, 

731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (internal citation omitted).

With these principles in mind, we turn to the issue on appeal, which is 

entirely one of construction of the provisions of the Zoning Code that relate to front 

yard setback requirements. 

Section 14-701(1)(d) of the Zoning Code sets forth the dimensional 

requirements “for [l]ots with [m]ultiple [s]treet [f]rontages.” ZONING CODE, §14-

701(1)(d); R.R. 300a.6 It states, in pertinent part, as follows: 

6

Section 14-701 of the Zoning Code, titled “Dimensional Standards,” provides, in pertinent part,

as follows:

(1) General Provisions.

(a) Applicability.

All primary and accessory structures must comply with the 

dimensional standards in this (§14-701). These dimensional standards 

may be further limited or modified by other applicable sections of this 

Zoning Code. General rules for measurement are in §14-202 (Rules of 

Measurement).

. . . .

(c) Front Yard Depths for Zone Blocks with More than One Zone.

Where any block frontage on one side of a street is divided into two or 

more districts, no structure shall be erected nearer to the street line 

than is permitted under the regulations for the district that covers the 

largest percentage of the street frontage on that block face.

(d) Requirements for Lots with Multiple Street Frontages.

For a lot fronting on more than one street, each street frontage shall be 

considered a front. The front yard requirements of the zoning district 

shall apply to those street frontages and the following side yard, rear 

yard, and primary frontage requirements shall apply. In all 

circumstances, the requirements for minimum open area and maximum 

occupied area remain the same. []
11

(.1) Properties Bounded by Two Streets.

When a property is bounded by two streets:

(.a) That constitute a corner, one of the remaining lot lines 

shall be deemed a side and the other remaining lot line shall 

be deemed a rear. Where the determination of side and rear 

lot lines is necessary for L&I to approve or deny a zoning 

permit application, the Commission shall determine the side 

and rear lot lines based on the orientation of the lot, 

orientation of the primary structure, orientation of the 

structures on adjacent lots, orientation of structures with 

frontage on the same blockface, the street type designation 

of the bounding streets, or any additional criteria stated in 

the regulations of the Commission for the purposes of 

clarifying or implementing this determination.

(.b) That are opposite each other, the remaining two 

property lines shall be considered sides and the side yard 

requirements of the zoning district shall apply to the 

remaining lot lines. The rear yard requirements of the zoning 

district shall not apply.

. . . .

(.4) Primary Frontage.

(.a) When necessary to apply certain provisions of this 

Zoning Code, properties bounded by two or more streets 

shall have at least one street frontage designated as a primary 

frontage by the Commission.

(.b) The Commission shall determine which street frontages 

shall be designated as a primary frontage based on the 

orientation of the primary structure, the orientation of the 

structures on adjacent lots, the orientation of other structures 

with frontage on same block face, the street type designation 

of the bounding street, or any additional criteria stated in the 

regulations of the Commission for the purposes of clarifying 

or implementing this determination.

(.c) The primary frontage designation shall only apply to 

those provisions of this Zoning Code where specified, 

otherwise the front yard and front setback requirements of 

this Zoning Code shall apply.

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1); R.R. 300a-01a (emphasis added).
12

For a lot fronting on more than one street, each street frontage 

shall be considered a front. The front yard requirements of the 

zoning district shall apply to those street frontages and the 

following side yard, rear yard, and primary frontage 

requirements shall apply.

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); R.R. 300a (emphasis added). Because the Property

fronts on two streets, Bethlehem Pike and Summit Street, “each street frontage” is a 

“front.” ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); R.R. 300a. The front yard requirements of 

the zoning district of the “lot fronting on more than one street” shall apply to those 

street frontages. ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); R.R. 300a. Here, “each street 

frontage” of the Property is located in the CMX-2 District, and it requires no front 

yard setback, as the parties concede. See ZONING CODE, Table 14-701-3; R.R. 309a.

Section 14-701(1)(c), upon which the trial court relied, is titled “Front 

Yard Depths for Zone Blocks with More than One Zone.” ZONING CODE, §14-

701(1)(c); R.R. 300a. It states that “[w]here any block frontage on one side of a 

street is divided into two or more districts, no structure shall be erected nearer to the 

street line than is permitted under the regulations for the district that covers the 

largest percentage of the street frontage on that block face.” ZONING CODE, §14-

701(1)(c); R.R. 300a. A “block frontage” is defined as “[t]he distance along any 

street line between the nearest streets intersecting it.” ZONING CODE, §14-203(40); 

R.R. 285a. A “block face” is defined as “the edge of a block of lots facing a publicly 

dedicated street and that is located between two intervening streets intersecting the 

street in front of the lots.” ZONING CODE, §14-203(39); R.R. 284a.

Section 14-701(1)(c) ensures that buildings placed along a street line 

up with one another for aesthetic harmony. It applies to the “block frontage” on 

Summit Street but not to Bethlehem Pike, which is governed by a single zoning 

district. There is no basis in the Zoning Code for applying the rules for the Summit 
13

Street block frontage to a different zone block on Bethlehem Pike. Each block 

frontage must be separately evaluated. Stated otherwise, Section 14-701(1)(c) 

cannot be extended from one block frontage, i.e., Summit Street, to another block 

frontage, i.e., Bethlehem Pike. To do so would disturb the lineup of buildings on 

Bethlehem Pike.

More importantly, Section 14-701(1)(c) has no effect to the extent it 

conflicts with Section 14-701(1)(d). The latter provision is quite clear that “a lot 

fronting on more than one street” will be subject to the front yard depth requirements 

for “the zoning district” in which the lot is located. ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); 

R.R. 300a. Here, the Property is located in the CMX-2 District, which imposes no 

front yard setback requirements. 

Objectors have offered no way to reconcile the two above-cited 

provisions of the Zoning Code. Objectors simply ignore Section 14-701(1)(d). 

Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 states:

Whenever a general provision in a statute shall be in conflict with 

a special provision in the same or another statute, the two shall 

be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If 

the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable, the 

special provisions shall prevail and shall be construed as an 

exception to the general provision, unless the general provision 

shall be enacted later and it shall be the manifest intention of the 

General Assembly that such general provision shall prevail.

1 Pa. C.S. §1933 (emphasis added). In the absence of reconciliation between two 

legislative provisions, the specific controls the general.

Section 14-701(1)(c) is a general provision that applies to multiple lots 

located along a block face. By contrast, Section 14-701(1)(d) applies to a single lot, 

i.e., a corner lot that faces two streets. As such, it is a special provision that must be 

construed as an “exception to the general provision.” 1 Pa. C.S. §1933. Section 14-
14

701(1)(c) governs the dimensional standards for a corner lot and supersedes Section 

14-701(1)(c).

7 As a corner lot located entirely in the CMX-2 District, the Property

does not need to have a front yard setback along either Bethlehem Pike or Summit 

Street. The Board did not err in denying Objectors’ appeal.

Nevertheless, the Zoning Board’s conclusion that the front yard setback 

requirements apply only to the primary frontage of the Property designated by the 

Planning Commission is erroneous. 

Section 14-701(1)(d) states that “the following side yard, rear yard, and 

primary frontage requirements,” set forth in subsection (d)(.1) through (d)(.4), “shall 

apply” to the “lot fronting on more than one street.” ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); 

R.R. 300a. The Zoning Code authorizes the Planning Commission, “when necessary 

to apply certain provisions of this Zoning Code,” to designate “at least one street 

frontage” as “a primary frontage” for “properties bounded by two or more streets.”

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d)(.4)(.a); R.R. 301a. However, that “primary frontage 

designation shall only apply to those provisions of this Zoning Code where

specified[.]” ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d)(.4)(.c); R.R. 301a. 

The Planning Commission has the authority to designate primary 

frontage of a property fronting on more than one street “[w]hen necessary to apply 

certain provisions of this Zoning Code[.]” ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d)(.4)(.a); 

R.R. 301a (emphasis added). However, the Planning Commission did not identify

those “provisions of this Zoning Code” that necessitated naming Bethlehem Pike as 

the primary frontage of the Property. Objectors argue that, as a result, the Planning 

7 Section 14-701(1)(d) was enacted by ordinance of December 8, 2015, Bill No. 150766. While 

Section 14-701(1)(c) was amended in March 2021 and again in April 2021, the amendments were 

not substantive. It is reasonable to infer that the legislative body intended Section 14-701(1)(d) to 

continue to operate as an exception to the generally applicable requirement set forth in Section 14-

701(1)(c). 
15

Commission’s frontage designation did not affect the setback requirements for the 

Property. Objectors may be correct, but the issue is irrelevant. Because Section 14-

701(1)(d) is dispositive, a primary frontage designation was not necessary to resolve 

the question of what front yard setback is required for the Property.

The Zoning Board did not err in holding that because the Property is

zoned CMX-2, it does not need to have a front yard setback along either Bethlehem 

Pike or Summit Street under Section 14-701(1)(d) of the Zoning Code. The Zoning 

Board’s conclusion that the front yard setback requirements apply only to the 

Property’s primary frontage, as designated by the Planning Commission, lacks 

support in the language of the Zoning Code. However, it is irrelevant to the outcome 

of this appeal.

Conclusion

The Property fronts two streets and lies entirely in the CMX-2 District. 

The Zoning Code is clear that “a lot fronting on more than one street” is subject to 

“[t]he front yard requirements of the zoning district” in which the lot is located.

ZONING CODE, §14-701(1)(d); R.R. 300a. We reject Objectors’ argument that 

Section 14-701(1)(c) has any application to the Property. Section 14-701(1)(c) of 

the Zoning Code is a general provision that ensures that buildings between the 

block’s corners line up in a tidy line. Section 14-701(1)(c) applies generally and

conflicts with Section 14-701(1)(d), which is a provision particular to a corner lot. 

Because the conflict in these provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision 

prevails, 1 Pa. C.S. §1933, and Section 14-701(1)(d) governs the Property’s front 

yard setback. 
16

For all these reasons, we hold that the Zoning Board did not err in 

upholding the issuance of the zoning permit and denying Objectors’ appeal. 

Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s September 13, 2022, order.

 ____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

Judge Dumas did not participate in the decision in this case.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Appeal of Chestnut Hill :

Community Association, Chestnut :

Hill Baptist Church, James Bruno, :

Maureen Pie-Bruno, Eileen Sisle, :

Kenneth Schotsch, and Devon :

Cargerry :

:

v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2022

:

City of Philadelphia Zoning Board :

of Adjustment and 10 Bethlehem Pike :

Property Owner, LLC :

:

Appeal of: 10 Bethlehem Pike :

Property Owner, LLC :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2024, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated September 13, 2022, in the abovecaptioned matter, is REVERSED.

 ____________________________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita