Court Opinion

ID: 9542560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:35:50.152026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:17.448099
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Crumlish, Jr. :
Section 1009 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Act of July 31, 1968, P. L. , Art. X, §1009 (53 P.S. §11009) mandates that the decision of the court below be based upon the findings of fact made by the zoning hearing board as supplemented or replaced by findings of fact made by the judge. The purpose in delineating the findings of fact is to facilitate appellate review. The opinion of the lower court fails to meet its responsibility in this respect. A comprehensive time consuming study of that opinion does, however, provide us with sufficient evidence to satisfy us that there was no manifest abuse of discretion or error of law. While the opinion of the court below does not meet the mandate of section 1009, the appellant has not been sufficiently prejudiced so as to justify the further expenditure of time and effort of remand.
For these reasons and those set forth in the majority opinion, I concur.