Appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County at No. 413 May Term, 1968, in case of Lester Hauck et ux., et al. v. Wilkes-Barre City Zoning Board of Adjustment. Appeal transferred September 14, 1970 to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Raymond J. Sabota, Solicitor, Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, with him Gifford Cappellini, Michael C. McHugh, City Solicitor, Chester B. Muroski, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.
B. Todd Maguire, for appellees.
President Judge Bowman, and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, and Mencer. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County which refused a special exception for the construction and operation of a pumping station by the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority. The court below on the merits held that the request failed to meet the requirements set forth in the Wilkes-Barre Zoning Ordinance. We affirm.
In December, 1967, the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority applied to the Wilkes-Barre City Zoning
Board of Adjustment for a permit to use land located in an R-2 Residential district for an enclosed pumping station. Section 4.303 of the Wilkes-Barre City Zoning Ordinance of 1966 provides for special public utility uses in all districts subject to authorization by the Board of Adjustment and conformity with prescribed conditions. The Zoning Board of Adjustment after a lengthy hearing granted the Sanitary Authority its use permit.
The decision was appealed by local residents, appellees herein, to the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. The residents introduced, by stipulation, evidence consisting of the Authority's revised plan, the record of the condemnation proceedings arising subsequent to the Board's determination, and evidence of their standing to appeal as residents of the area. Thereupon the court undertook to consider the use request on its merits and reversed the decision of the Board, holding that the requested use failed to comply with requirements that it "conform with regulations applicable to the District where located, . . . be provided with adequate parking and loading facilities; . . . not create conditions adverse to the public health, safety, welfare or convenience, [and not] injuriously affect property values in the neighborhood." Section 4.303.
The Authority has not appealed this decision; however, the City through the zoning board and/or itself has instituted an appeal to this Court. Appellees have moved to quash this appeal upon the contention that neither the City nor the Board has standing to appeal. It is clear that the City of Wilkes-Barre has standing to appeal and therefore the motion to quash is denied. Edwards Zoning Case, 392 Pa. 188, 140 A.2d 110 (1958); Lansdowne Borough Board of Adjustment Appeal, 313 Pa. 523, 170 A. 867 (1934); Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. , No. 247, Art. X, Section 1003, 53 P.S. § 11003.
The City argues that the court below improperly considered the case on its merits and should have limited its inquiry to the question of whether the Board had committed a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law. We disagree. Where the Court of Common Pleas takes evidence it deems necessary for a proper disposition of the appeal, its duty is to decide the issue on the merits. Rogalski v. Upper Chichester Twp., 406 Pa. 550, 554, 178 A.2d 712 (1962). It is immaterial that this evidence consisted entirely of exhibits and plans entered by stipulation, Cresko Zoning Case, 400 Pa. 467, 470, 162 A.2d 219 (1960); Soroka v. Falls Township Zoning Board of Adj., 14 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 172 (1964); Carter v. Yardley Borough Zoning Board of Adj., 14 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 14 (1964). "[T]he shape of the case with the new exhibits is not the same as without it." Cresko ...