Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, in case of Frank B. Bellosi and Sandy J. Bellosi, his wife v. The Zoning Hearing Board of Clifton Heights Borough, and John Cacciola and Norma Cacciola, his wife, No. 83-9966.
Robert L. Pinto, Levis & Pinto, for appellants.
Donald A. Browns, with him, David E. Auerbach, Eckell, Sparks, Levy, Auerbach & Monte, for appellees.
Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Doyle did not participate in this decision. Dissenting Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.
Frank B. Bellosi and Sandy J. Bellosi (Appellants) appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County which affirmed the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board of Clifton Heights (Board) to grant John Cacciola's (Applicant) request for a variance. We will reverse.
Applicant owns and operates a grocery store which qualified as a valid non-conforming use in an R-2 Residential District by virtue of an order of the trial court dated April 25, 1979.*fn1 Applicant has now applied for a variance to permit the construction of an addition to his store to accommodate its expanded business.
The Board, after a hearing, denied the variance on the basis that the property could be used in its present condition and that Applicant would not suffer undue hardship if the variance was not granted. On Applicant's appeal, the court remanded the case to the Board for "further consideration".*fn2 Another hearing was held on June 28, 1983, and on August 11, 1983, the Board granted Applicant's variance request subject to several conditions.*fn3
Appellants, who live next door to the grocery store, appealed the August 11, 1983 decision to the court. That court remanded the case to the Board for a "clarification of the August 11, 1983 order" and directed the Board to state their findings of fact and conclusions
of law in more detail.*fn4 Another hearing was held on July 19, 1984. At the time of that hearing, only one member of the Board which had heard the testimony given at the two previous hearings was still an active member of the Board. The hearing was limited to eliciting that Board member's recollection of the reasons why he voted to grant the Application.*fn5 The Board, apparently, never did file any detailed findings and conclusions as directed by the Court. The trial court, ...