Case Name: In Re: Appeal of Valicenti et ux.
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1930-07-10
Citations: 99 Pa. Super. 279
Docket Number: Appeal No. 214
Parties: In Re: Appeal of Valicenti et ux.
Judges: Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham and Baldrige, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 279–281

Head Matter:
In Re: Appeal of Valicenti et ux.
Argued April 30, 1930.
Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, Cunningham and Baldrige, JJ.
Martin Croissant, and with him Walter W. Riehl, for appellant.
E. B. Goldsmith, for appellee.
July 10, 1930:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Baldrige, J.,
The Supreme Court in Valicenti's Appeal, 298 Pa. 276, sustained the board of adjustment in rejecting a permit to these appellants and in directing the removal of an unlawful projection built in violation of Article 2 of Ordinance No. 594 of the first class township of Mt. Lebanon, Allegheny County, which provides, "Where a building line is referred to in this ordinance it shall be construed to mean that the outside wall of the structure, including bay windows, sun parlors, sun porches, dormers, second floor projections, and solid entrances shall not be constructed or maintained nearer to the adjacent street or lot line than the building line so referred to."
The board of adjustment refused to approve new plans submitted by the appellant which provided for closing the opening between the construction in controversy and a front bedroom and eliminating the front window, without correcting the objectionable second floor feature which they were directed to remove.
The appellants term the affronting projection a porch and contend that the proposed change brings the building within the provisions of the ordinance. The character of the construction cannot be disguised by giving it another name, nor do the proposed alterations, leaving unchanged the external physical lines of the second floor, bring the appellants within the decree of the Supreme Court.
The board of adjustment, and the lower court likewise, held that the second floor projection was contrary to the terms and spirit of the ordinance, and with that view we concur.
Judgment is affirmed.