Court Opinion

ID: 9747276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:08:07.548511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:22.214640
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While I acknowledge the general rule and application as applied by the majority, I believe it is inapplicable to the facts in the instant case.
Although caselaw supports the majority’s decision not to allow the extension of the nonconforming use over the after-acquired property, there is an overriding public policy which I believe should be controlling in this case.
Several of the lots in one block were purchased for the extension of the nonconforming use prior to the amendment to the zoning ordinance. I believe that this fact should allow the entire block to be utilized as parking. See Philadelphia Art Alliance v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 377 Pa. 144, 104 A.2d 492 (1954).
In this particular case, the applicant is the Suburban General Hospital which public policy, within the reasonable bounds of discretion, should allow to continue functioning for the betterment of society and the community.
I would hold as controlling the significant shift of the hospital’s character of service, from inpatient to outpatient services. Such a shift necessarily involves increases in the demand for parking space. Because there is increased utilization of outpatient services by patients on a daily basis, parking is essential, and the extension of such parking is necessary to the continued viability of the nonconforming use.
Accordingly, I would reverse.