Opinion
April 30, 1930.
July 10, 1930.
Municipalities — Zoning law — Ordinance — Adjustment Board — Reconstruction of objectionable structure — Building permit — Refusal of.
In an appeal from the action of a board of adjustment refusing to issue a permit for the reconstruction of a part of the plaintiffs building, in accordance with plans filed, the record disclosed that the plaintiffs erected a building with a second floor projection, which was in violation of a zoning ordinance. The board revoked the original permit and ordered the removal of the unlawful construction. The plaintiffs subsequently filed plans for its reconstruction. The plans termed the affronting projection a porch, but left the external physical lines of the objectionable second floor feature unchanged.
Held: That where the plans of the proposed alterations of the objectionable construction disguised the character of the construction by giving it another name, but left unchanged the external physical lines, the terms and spirit of the zoning ordinance were violated and that a permit for its reconstruction was properly refused.
The character of a construction cannot be disguised by giving it another name.
Appeal No. 214, April T., 1930, by Federico Valicenti and Carmela Valicenti from decree of C.P., Allegheny County, April T., 1930, No. 2286, in the appeal of Federico Valicenti and Carmela Valicenti et ux.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Affirmed.
Appeal from decision of adjustment board refusing a permit for reconstruction of an objectionable structure. Before MacFARLANE, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the appeal. Federico Valicenti and Carmela Valicenti appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.
Martin Croissant, and with him Walter W. Riehl, for appellant.
E.B. Goldsmith, for appellee.
Argued April 30, 1930.
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.