issue in the variance proceedings. When presented with an application for an area variance, a board of adjustment can normally presume the contemplated use is permitted, and consequently, a determination of the legality of the use is unnecessary and collateral to the board’s primary function to determine the need for the variance. Thus, a decision granting or denying a variance would not normally imply a decision that the contemplated use is either prohibited or permitted. However, when the proposed use is raised as an issue, the board of adjustment may find it necessary to decide the propriety of the contemplated use in performing its function to decide the necessity for a variance. See Schoepple v. Lower Saucon Twp. Zoning Hewing Bd., 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 658, 624 A.2d 699, 705-06 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we must decide if Christenson’s case
holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling holding that the issue of the voluntariness of a settlement agreement is waived on appeal if not raised before the board holding that issue of whether dismissal was with or without prejudice becomes ripe only when new action is filed and issue is raised the court in the new action should decide the issue holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide