Court Opinion

ID: 9754792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:14:11.923237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:58.132863
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
The initial facts in this case are clearly stated in Shender v. Philadelphia, 375 Pa. 596, 597, 101 A. 2d 667:
*269“Plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land in the City of Philadelphia, which had been re-zoned by ordinance of counsel [sic] dated December 31, 1952. Prior to the passage of the said ordinance, the plaintiff had prepared plans for the erection of buildings upon the land in conformity with the then existing zoning regulations and had secured a zoning permit for the erection thereof.”
Plaintiff had filed a bill in equity to set aside said (amendatory) zoning ordinance, the effect of which was to nullify or revoke the zoning permit which, as above stated, had previously been issued to him for the erection of buildings in accordance with the then existing zoning regulations. Plaintiffs bill was dismissed on procedural grounds. The said amendatory ordinance was subsequently invalidated, as the majority opinion in this case recognizes, by the decision of this Court in Kelly v. Philadelphia, 382 Pa. 459, 115 A. 2d 238.
Petitioner then filed another (his present) application for a permit to which he was clearly and unquestionably entitled. Nevertheless, plaintiffs present application was refused by the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which refusal was absolutely unjustifiable and illegal. Over a month thereafter, a new ordinance (designed to change the zoning) was introduced in Council and passed six weeks later. Plaintiff had no notice or knowledge of this contemplated Councilmanic action at the time he applied for this second permit. Under these facts and circumstances, plaintiff, as the lower Court held, was clearly and without any doubt entitled to a permit.
The instant case is ruled by Lened Homes, Inc. v. Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections, 386 Pa. 50, 123 A. 2d 406, and Shapiro v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 377 Pa. 621, 105 A. 2d 299. This case *270is clearly distinguishable from A. J. Aberman, Inc. v. New Kensington, 377 Pa. 520, 105 A. 2d 586, where the facts were very unusual and “the building permit was not obtained in good faith but merely ... in an effort to circumvent it [the pending zoning ordinance].”
Mr. Justice Musmanno joins in this dissenting opinion.