Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

June 25, 20081 Volume 21 No. 12 ----'J township. LVGC sought to develop the parcel into 302 lots on which it would construct a variety of housing units. On December 4, 2006, LVGC submitted a preliminary plan to the township's Board of Supervisors (the Board). _ On January 15, 2007, the Board decided to reject LVGC's preliminary plan in its entirety. On January 26,2007, the Board sent written notice of the denial to LVGC. Pennsylvania statutory law, Section 508(1) of the Municipalities Plan- ning Code (MPC) required notice of a decision of a governing body or planning agency be mailed or personally given to an applicant within fif- teen days following its decision. Section 508(3) of the MPC provided that failure of a governing body or agency to render a decision and notify the applicant "within the time and manner herein required shall be deemed an approval. of the application . . .." The township's subdivision and land development ordinance (SAL- DO) required/notice to the applicant ofthe Board's deeisionwithin five days after the final meeting at which a preliminary plan is reviewed. LVGC filed an action in court. It sought a court order, deeming its plan approved. LVGC argued that the Board's failure to notify it of the denial of its preliminary plan within the five-day period set forth by the SALDO constituted a deemed approval of its plan. The trial court found that the relevant provision of the SALDO, un- like Section 508 of the MPC, did not contain a deemed approval provi- sion. Accordingly, the court held that failure to comply with the SALDO did not result in a deemed approval of LVGC's preliminary plan. LVGC appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. -:~\ ) On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined that Section 508 of the MPC's deemed approval provisions did not apply to the SALDO. Accordingiy, the court held that the Board's failure to act within the five~day time limit of the SALDO did not result in a deemed approval. In so concluding, the court noted that deemed approvals wer~ not fa- vored. The court said this was because they result in regulatory approv- als that could be at odds with the zoning provisions that were enacted to protect the health, welfare and safety of the community. The court said that for there to be a deemed approval, there had to be. an express legis- lative declaration of deemed approval in a statutory or ordmance provi- sions. Furthermore, said the court, in the absence of such a deemed ap- ) proval provision, it would not legislate one into existence. -' LVGC acknowledged thatthe SALDO contained no deemed approv- al provision. Nonetheless, LVGC argued that language in Section 508 . @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 7 77