Neighbors appealed three separate zoning decisions of the city board of aldermen regarding subdivision application for townhouse development.
The Circuit Court consolidated the appeals, reversed the decisions in two of the appeals, and on motion to alter or amend, altered its ruling in part, and remanded to the city board. City appealed.
The Supreme Court held that remand was required for a factual determination as to whether subdivision applicant was acting as a “petitioner” entitled to notice as a necessary party.
Remand of zoning appeals was required for a factual determination as to whether subdivision applicant was acting as a “petitioner” before the board of aldermen or whether he was acting in a representative capacity on behalf of the petitioner, and thus whether neighbors who appealed zoning decision were required to name and give notice to applicant as a necessary party; in addition, Supreme Court would direct the trial court to determine all issues of fact that may arise out of any appeal submitted to the trial court for a determination and that may be necessary for disposition of cases on appeal.