Domeisen v. ZONING HEARING BD., O'HARA TP.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “[w]e will not disturb the [zoning hearing board’s] finding of fact, which is supported by the record[,]” that the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare
• first application proposed 300 percent increase in floor area compared to 129 percent increase in second application
• first application proposed 300 percent increase in floor area compared to 129 percent increase in second application
• remand necessary where zoning board did not make necessary findings regarding variance
• applicant seeking expansion of nonconforming use proceeded under special exception and variances
• “A zoning board has a duty to make essential findings of fact sufficient to support its conclusions. In the absence of such findings, the court may remand the matter to the board so that it can fulfill that duty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).