Citation:

Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 32 A.3d 287 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).

Summary:
Mandamus action only available where party is clearly entitled to a permit.
Case Details:

Applicant sought a zoning permit from the City to continue to use its property as a preexisting, nonconforming personal care home.  Believing the application did not meet the procedural requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Officer rejected the application.  Applicant filed mandamus actions requesting a peremptory judgment to compel the Zoning Hearing Board to issue the permit.  Applicant stated in court that it intended to convert the property to a drug and alcohol abuse facility, a different use than the then existing nonconforming use.  The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the mandamus action because Applicant failed to show that it was clearly entitled to a permit.  Because Applicant was not clearly entitled to the permit, mandamus was not appropriate.

Disclaimer
No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this website. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue, or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herin. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice.