Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in case of William H. Thayer and Josephine Thayer v. Lower Milford Township and Lower Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 410 June Term, 1973.
James E. DelBello, with him John P. Trevaskis, Jr. and Trevaskis, Doyle, Currie, Nolan & Bunting, for appellants.
Edward H. McGee, for appellees.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 16 Pa. Commw. Page 126]
This appeal is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County which dismissed the appeal of William H. Thayer and Josephine Thayer (appellants) from a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Milford Township denying the appellants a variance to permit certain portions of their land to be used as a tractor-trailer repair facility.
The scope of our review in a zoning case where, as here, the lower court has taken additional testimony is limited to a determination of whether or not the decision of the lower court manifests an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Simmers v. Rorer, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 37, 315 A.2d 364 (1974). Our review of the lower court's findings of fact and the underlying record reveal neither an abuse of discretion nor an error of law.
Therefore, we affirm and adopt the able opinion of Judge Backenstoe which correctly sets forth the applicable law and fully explains the reasons for the order under challenge here.
Opinion by Backenstoe, Judge:
"This is an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Milford Township, Lehigh County, denying to the appellants a variance to permit certain portions of their land to be used as a tractortrailer repair facility. The land is located in an R-45 residential district and under the terms of the zoning ordinance such use would be prohibited. The appellants had previously applied to the zoning officer for a variance based on a nonconforming use and were denied.
"The issues raised are: (1) whether or not the zoning hearing board erred in refusing to grant the variance requested by appellants; (2) whether or not the zoning hearing board erred in refusing to permit the present use of the property as a valid and normal expansion
[ 16 Pa. Commw. Page 127]
of a nonconforming use; and (3) whether the zoning ordinance excludes from the township the use in which the appellants are presently engaged, and ...