Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The appeals court first noted that the lower court's review was limited to determinations whether: 1) procedural due process was accorded in the administrative proceeding; 2) the essential require- ments of law were observed in the administrative proceedmg; and 3) the administrative findings and judgment were supported by competent substantial evidence. The appeals court's scope of re- view was even more limited; it could determine only "whether the trial court (1) afforded due process and (2) observed the essential requirements of law." A ruling constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law when it amounted to "a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Further, the appeals court could not. enter any judgment on the merits of the underlying controversy, or direct the lower court to enter any par- ticular order-it could only affirm the decision or "quash" it. The appeals court ultimately concluded that the lower court had de- part'ed from the essential requirements of law, and therefore, it was obligated to annul the decision. The appeals court found that here, rather than merely determin- ing whether the hearing officer's findings were supported by com- petent substantial evidence, the trial court conducted an indepen- dent review of the record; concluding that competent substantial evidence supported a cori.clusion that the county miscalculated the fair share assessment. The trial court entered judgment on the mer- its, offering what it believed to be an equitable remedy. Both the independent review and the proposed remedy went beyond the trial court's mandate. Because it exceeded its author- ity, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it found in Kendak's favor. Because of this error, the decision of the lower court was quashed. Nonconforming Use-Board finds tennis club's plan to enclose courts creates new structure Club argues project is legal expansion of nonconforming use Citation: Narberth ]KST Tennis Club, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Narberth, 2007 WL 4270743 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) PENNSYLVANIA (12/07/07)-The Narberth Tennis Club leased property in the borough of Narberth. The property was located in two adjoining zoning classifications; one was residential and the other was commercial. The club had operated in its existing location since the 1920s-which predated the town's zoning code. 10 126 ) ) "-~