Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County in case of B & B Shoe Products Company v. The Zoning Hearing Board of Manheim Borough and Borough of Manheim, Intervenor, Trust Book No. 43, Page 202.
W. Jeffrey Sidebottom, with him Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Barber, for appellant.
Frank P. Mincarelli, with him Charles B. Grove, Jr., and May, Grove, Stork & Blakinger, for appellee.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 476]
This is an appeal from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County which reversed the Manheim Borough Zoning Hearing Board's (Board) denial of an application for a special exception so that the B & B Shoe Products Company (B & B) could expand its nonconforming use.
B & B proposed to build an addition to its shoe manufacturing plant located in a district which, after the business had been established, had been zoned R-3 Residential. As a lawful nonconforming use, B & B needed the Board's approval to expand, as prescribed by Section 1801(1) of the Manheim Borough Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance):
Expansion of Nonconforming Uses. A nonconforming use shall not be expanded unless an appeal has been filed with the Zoning Hearing Board and such expansion has been approved as a special exception. The Board shall apply the following criteria:
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 477]
a. The proposed expansion shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the square foot area used at the time this Zoning Ordinance becomes effective.
b. The proposed expansion shall not cause an increased detrimental effect on surrounding properties.
After a hearing, the Board denied the special exception*fn1 without making specific findings of fact. On appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, the Borough of Manheim (Borough) intervened and requested that the matter be remanded to the Board for specific findings, and this was done. The Board then forwarded findings to the court that the B & B property, prior to any expansion, did not have sufficient parking facilities as required under Section 1402.9 of the Ordinance,*fn2 and that the proposed expansion would further reduce the area that could be used for off-street employee parking.*fn3 On the basis of these findings, the Board ...