Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

/-'-').. .i :: ;j j: August 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 15 ..-....... ups to hook into the Boro1,lgh of Coopers burg interceptor. However, as a result of hydraulic overloading and Department of Environmental Pro- tectionregulations, a moratorium had been irriposed on any sewer con- nections in the area. Thus, the sewer proposal for the Plan requlred an . amendment to the Act 537 Plan and rerou~ing of the sewer line from the development to interceptor lines serving an area of the township not af- ~ected by the moratorium. The Board voted to deny the Plan. The reasons for the denial were based on factors including the decision of the Board not to amend the Act 537 Plan. Other reasons given for denial of the plan included items with which McGrath had agreed to comply and that typically would be characterized as conditions of approval. McGrath filed a land use appeal with the trial court. It challenged the Board's denial of preliminary approval. The trialcourt affirmed the Board's denial of the Plan. McGrath appealed. On appeal, McGrath argued, among other argu- ments, that: (1) the Board erred when it denied preliminary plan approv- al rather than granting approval of the Plan conditioned on McGrath providing sewer serVice for the proposed development; and (2) the trial court erred in affirming denial of the preliminary plan approval where . all of the items cited as the basis for denial of plan approval were items with which McGrath had explicitly agreed to comply. DECISION: Affirmed. i' t On appeal, the court noted that a preliminaty plan had to be ap- proved if it met all specific objective requirements under a subdivision and land development ordinance. The court said that if a preliminary plan contained minor defects that were correctable by amending the plan; it had to be approved subject to a condition that the minor defects be corrected. However, the court explained, where the preliminary plan failed to comply with objec#ve substantive requirements, the governing body could, in ~t discretion, either reject the plan outright or grant condi- tional approval. The courtfound that McGrath's Plan failed to meet substantive re- quirements of the county ordinance. This was because the ordinance re- quired compliance with the Act 537 Plan and McGrath could not com- ply with the Act 537 Plan without engaging in an adversarial process . with the township. Therefore, the court; concluded that it was within the Board's discretion to deny McGrath's 'plan. McGrath had argued that the court had long held that 'preliminary plans would not have a final resolution on issues such as sewer and should therefore be approved conditioned on obtaining sewer service. The court found McGrath's situation differed from those previously ad- @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 11 93