On appeal to that court, Delaware asserted that the trial court erred in dismissing Delaware`s motion to dismiss; *607 that the Court of First Instance erred in granting the municipality`s application when no ordinary appeal was lodged with the Court of First Instance; that the Commission`s decision was based on sound evidence; and that the trial court erred in refusing to consider certain points of law raised by Delaware in support of the Chamber`s decision. These issues require double consideration. Since the trial court considered new evidence on the first issue of Gateside`s standing and rendered a legal decision on the new issues raised by Delaware, that court must determine whether the trial court abused its powers or erred in law in ruling on those issues. See Claremont Properties, Inc. v Board of Township Supervisors of Middlesex Township, 118 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 527, 546 A.2d 712 (1988). However, as regards the substantive issue of granting the derogation, the court of first instance did not adduce any further evidence. If the trial court did not receive additional evidence to appeal the zoning, the scope of that court`s review is limited to determining whether the Chamber abused its discretion, erred in law, or made findings of fact that are not supported by solid evidence. Vanguard Cellular System, Inc. v Zoning Hearing Board of Smithfield Township, 130 Pa.Commonwealth Ct.
371, 568 A.2d 703 (1989). The transaction demonstrates Brown Rudnick`s value-added service, which manages a complex multi-counterparty process and provides innovative corporate finance advice and high-quality legal execution. Finally, Delaware submits that the Tribunal was wrong to refuse to address the legal issues raised by Delaware on the ground that Delaware did not raise those issues before the Chamber and would therefore waive them. These questions revolve around the argument that Delaware does not in fact need a diversion to convert the use of gas station property to a car wash, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Mutimer Co. v. Wagner, 376 Pa. 575, 103 A.2d 417 (1954). In Mutimer, the Supreme Court held that the use is not considered altered because the current and proposed non-compliant uses of a building *612 fall within the same class of use as the relevant zoning order. Delaware submits that gas stations and car washes fall within the same subdivision of the regulation and that, therefore, there would be no change in Delaware`s use of its property.
At Brown Rudnick, we combine ingenuity and experience to achieve great results for our clients. We offer partner-oriented service; We provide incentives for our lawyers to work together in the best interest of the client; And we put excellence before scale, and focus on practices such as life sciences, corporate restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, white-collar crime, international litigation and intellectual property, where we are recognized market leaders. We have more than 250 lawyers and government relations experts in the United States and Europe with offices in major financial centers. Beyond the United States and Europe, we serve clients in the Middle East, North Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. Francis X. Dillon, Newtown, for appeal, Falls Tp. Zoning Hearing Vol. Delaware is a landowner in Falls Township, Bucks County (Township) who has sought approval of a land plan to replace its existing car service station with a self-service car wash. The gas station is a non-compliant use under the Township of Falls Zoning Order (the Ordinance),[1] and the proposed car wash would also be a non-compliant use under the by-law. The Delaware property is located in a neighborhood commercial district (NC District), which allows some retail and service businesses for the convenience of residents in the immediate vicinity. Order, § 209-22. Car washes and gas stations are permitted conditional uses in the township`s commercial road district.
Order, § 209-23. 53 P.S. § 10908(3); Rules of Procedure, Rules 209-66. The above definition does not further define “timely appearance of the recording”. However, it is clear that a written appearance on certain forms is not required unless the zoning council chooses to require their use. There is no evidence or argument that the Commission imposed this requirement at the time of this case. In fact, there is no evidence of established procedures for obtaining party status or appearing before the Chamber, except for the statement by the appropriate Secretary of the Chamber that correspondence sent to the Chamber prior to a hearing is accepted and considered by the Commission and generally recorded in the minutes. [2] [5] Delaware`s appeal to a 1956 Supreme Court case, O`Neill v.
