to allow the Board to “interpret the intent of the developer.” Thus, if the Board believed it could determine the intent of the developer from the information which was otherwise provided on the Site Development Plan, then it would be free to waive any requirement that more specific proposed control grades be shown. Here, the Site Development Plan showed basically flat land, showed its contours at ten feet intervals, and showed no plans to make any major landscape changes which would affect the base elevation after construction. It was not arbitrary or unreasonable for the Board to determine on this evidence that sufficient evidence existed for it to “interpret the intent of the developer” as required by Section 170(B)(1). Cf. Kareltiz v. Soraghan, 851 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, the judgment of the trial
holding that boards failure to comply with precise requirement of city ordinance did not render its decision void where transcript of proceedings before board was sufficient to assure meaningful review of boards decision holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school boards president constituted the decision of the board holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations holding that the boards statement of reasons or bases must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the boards decision as well as to facilitate review in this court holding that the boards statement of reasons or bases must be adequate to enable a claimant to under stand the precise basis for the boards decision as well as to facilitate review in this court