Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of Christopher M. Abernathy v. The Zoning Hearing Board of Hampton Township and Hampton Township, No. SA 852 of 1984.
William D. Coholan, with him, John R. Luke, Grogan, Graffam, McGinley & Lucchino, P.C., for appellant.
John H. Auld, II, Howard S. Auld and Associates, for appellee.
Judges Craig, Doyle and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino. Concurring Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 194]
Hampton Township (Appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) striking certain conditions imposed by the Zoning Hearing Board of Hampton Township (Board) upon the grant of a special exception to Christopher M.
[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 195]
Abernathy (Appellee). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Appellee is an attorney and the owner of a piece of property located at 4499 Mt. Royal Boulevard in Hampton Township. The property is zoned residential "B" and consists of a lot upon which sit a one and one-half story brick house and a two story garage. The garage contains a second floor apartment.
In early 1984, Appellee filed an application for a special exception under section 8.400 of the Hampton Township Zoning Ordinance (special exception for a professional office in residential "B" district) to use the property for a law office.*fn1 At the time the application was filed, the garage apartment was being leased as a residence.*fn2 A hearing was held before the Board and the Board granted Appellee's application for a special exception subject to several conditions. Two conditions are the subject of this appeal, one condition that only one use, a professional law office use, could be made of all structures on the property and another condition that the apartment use would have to be discontinued.
Appellee appealed the imposition of these two conditions to the trial court. Appellant intervened in support of the Board's decision.
After reviewing the record sent to it by the Board, the trial court concluded that the record was incomplete because neither party had presented the Board with
[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 196]
any evidence regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the conditions imposed, and remanded the case for additional findings as to the ...