Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County in the case of Clinton Dennis v. Texas Township Board of Supervisors, No. 1131-1985-Civil.
Mark R. Zimmer, Rutherford and Zimmer, for appellant.
Lee C. Krause, Howell, Krause and Schloesser, for appellee.
Judges MacPhail and Doyle, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 262]
Clinton Dennis (Appellant) appeals an order of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas which affirmed the denial of Appellant's sewage permit application by the Respondent, Texas Township Board of Supervisors (Board). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Appellant owns property in Texas Township, Wayne County, which is improved by a two-story home and
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 263]
four outbuildings. The structures, which are more than one hundred and fifty years old, have no indoor plumbing or toilet facilities. On July 16, 1985, Appellant filed a permit application with the Texas Township Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO), seeking permission to install a sewage disposal system at the property.
The SEO denied Appellant's application pursuant to regulations promulgated under the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act, Act of January 24, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1535, as amended, 35 P.S. §§ 750.1-750.20. See 25 Pa. Code §§ 73.11, 73.12. After a hearing, requested by Appellant, the Board again denied the permit application. On appeal to the court of common pleas, Judge Robert J. Conway remanded the case to the Board for another hearing so that a complete record of the proceedings before it could be made, pursuant to Section 553 of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. § 553. Two hearings were held and the transcript filed with the court of common pleas.
Following oral argument before Judge Conway, the case was assigned to Judge Harold A. Thomson, Jr., who entered an opinion and order on October 14, 1986.*fn1 Judge Thomson affirmed the denial of Appellant's permit application, concluding that because Appellant's property was identified on a "Flood Hazard Boundary Map," the permit was properly denied. Appellant's appeal of this order is now before us for disposition.
Appellant's first argument on appeal is that Judge Thomson's determination did not comply with the provisions of the Local Agency Law because the opinion and order was not rendered by the judge ...