Appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Northampton County, No. 20 October Term, 1969, in case of C. N. Zumas v. Leon J. McGeady, Charles J. Green, Lewis L. Lukehart, the Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Bethlehem.
Joseph C. Pongracz, with him T. E. Butterfield, Jr., City Solicitors, for appellant.
Robert H. Holland, with him Kolb, Holland, Antonelli & Heffner, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, Mencer and Rogers.
This is an appeal by the City of Bethlehem from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County directing that a special exception be granted to appellee for the construction of 270 multiple dwelling units known as "Spring Garden Townhouses" in an "R-G" residential district in which multiple dwellings are permitted as special exceptions under the Zoning Ordinance of that city.
The matter came before the court below on an appeal by the owner-developer (appellee here) from a
refusal by the Zoning Hearing Board to grant the requested special exception. A full hearing was held by the court below after which the hearing judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law in an opinion of the court and directed the issuance of a special exception.
Under these circumstances the scope of our review is limited to a determination of whether the lower court abused its discretion or erred as a matter of law. Richman v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 391 Pa. 254, 137 A.2d 280 (1958).
With one exception, the opinion of the court below fully deals with and properly disposes of all arguments advanced by appellant in this appeal. Not specifically considered by the lower court in its opinion is a contention by appellant that the lower court erred in directing a special exception be granted for a project, the detailed plans for which had not been submitted to either the Board or the Court.
The opinion and order from which this appeal was taken was handed down October 6, 1970. Shortly thereafter, the Zoning Hearing Board filed a petition for rehearing averring that inasmuch as neither in prior proceedings before the Board nor in the proceedings before the court had there been submitted a multiple dwelling plan for 270 units the record should be opened for submission of such a plan and reconsideration by the court of its order in light of such a submission. A rule to show cause was issued, an answer to the rule was filed and a hearing was held on November 6, 1970, at which a 270 unit plan was made a part of the record by stipulation of counsel and its import was argued at some length. The only witness ...