Appeal of Apex Properties – Cmwlth. Court – May 18, 2022 – ** unreported memorandum decision
In this zoning variance case, the court reversed and remanded because of lack of findings and reasons, as required by 2 Pa. C.S. § 555, which requires that “[a]ll adjudications of a local agency shall be in writing [and] shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication . . . .”
The court said that it could not address the merits of Apex’s arguments on appeal, because of “the substantive deficiencies of the Board’s Decision. In this instance, the Board did not explain in its decision how or why it came to the conclusion that Apex had failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Instead, the Board merely summarized the facts, stated the legal standard for determining whether a variance application should be approved, and then flatly concluded that Apex had not satisfied that standard. There is thus no way for us to clearly discern the reasoning underpinning the Board’s conclusions.
Furthermore, it appears that the Board improperly reviewed the party’s steep slope variance application using the Zoning Code’s standards for use variance, a different and more stringent variance.
Given all of this, the court held that the Board failed to provide adequate “findings and . . . reasons for [its] adjudication,” 2 Pa. C.S. § 555, and did not “explain its decision in sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review.” Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 501 A.2d 1383, 1389 (Pa. 1985). Accordingly, the court vacated the board order and remand the matter with instructions that it issue a new, legally sufficient adjudication, through which it must properly articulate its reasons for denying Apex’s variance application. See Troiani Grp. v. City of Pittsburgh Bd. of Appeals, 260 A.3d 1006, 1014-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021).
+++++
** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court can be cited “for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent” under 210 Pa. Code 69.414 (citing judicial opinions in filings).
