Court Opinion

ID: 9747617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:23:51.769582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:25.059859
License: Public Domain

*764DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes, based solely on the uncontra-dicted testimony of Thomas B. Earhart, Esquire (Earhart), counsel for Second Baptist Church of Homestead (Second Baptist), that the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) of the Borough of West Mifflin (Borough) erred in finding that the principal use of the property at 612 Coal Road (Subject Property) is and will continue to be a commercial day care center. (Majority op. at 7; ZHB’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 26, 36.) I cannot agree.
The ZHB specifically found that “Second Baptist failed to submit credible evidence regarding any specific future use of the Subject Property.” (ZHB’s Findings of Fact, No. 31) (emphasis added). Thus, the ZHB rejected the uncontradicted testimony of Earhart pertaining to Second Baptist’s use of the Subject Property for church-related activities. Determinations as to the credibility of witnesses are matters left solely to the ZHB in the performance of its fact finding role. Shamah v. Hellam Township Zoning Hearing Board, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 610, 648 A.2d 1299 (1994). Absent any credible evidence relating to Second Baptist’s use of the Subject Property for church-related activities, the only possible principal use the ZHB could find for the Subject Property was as a commercial day care center.1
Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would reverse.

. Without credible evidence to support a finding that Second Baptist will use the Subject Property as a church, it is not necessary to address whether a day care center constitutes an accessory use to a church.