Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No.8 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />ment the comprehensive plan's "low impact" objective through the Or- <br />dinances "non-intensive" standard-which the Board had applied in its <br />2005 decision. <br />The court concluded that because the statutes, the town's comprehen- <br />sive plan, and the Ordinance were consistent in "pointing to the [O]rdi- <br />nance as the source of the requirements Poland Sprmg had to meet in or- <br />der to obtain a peIIPii:, the Superior Court erred in imposmg a criterion <br />not found in the [O]rdinance." <br /> <br />See also: LaBonta v. City of Water vi lIe) 528 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1987). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court said that. the actions taken by the Board in <br />2007 were of no real value given the fact the superior court had <br />erred in remandmg the matter. Reviewing only the Board's 2005 de- <br />cision, the court found that evidence was sufficient to support the. <br />Board's findings. <br /> <br />Deemed Approval-:--Applicant argues plan <br />application should be deemed approved <br />given township's failure to timely act <br /> <br />Township coUnters that submission of a second plan <br />relieved it of the obligation to review the first <br /> <br />Citation: Philomena & Salamone v. Board of SupJrs of Upper Merion <br />Tp:) 2009 WL 692610 (Pa. 2009) <br /> <br />PENNSYLVANIA (03/18/09)-Philomeno & Salamone ("P & S") <br />owned 18.67 acres in the township. P & S sought to subdivide the prop- <br />erty into two parcels, and to further subdivide one of those parcels into <br />17 residential lots. On June 5, 2003, P & S submitted a subdivision ap- <br />plication to the township's Board of Supervisors (the "Board"). <br />Section 508 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code <br />("MPC") required a municipality to take action on an application with <br />90 days obhe next meeting of its governing body or planning agency. <br />Failure to take timely action would be "deemed an approval." After P & <br />S agreed to the Board's two' requests for extensions of time to make a de- <br />cision, the deadline for a decision on P & S's application was December <br />24,.2003. <br />Prior to. that date, P & S separately filed a conditional use application <br />for the property; P & S proposed a cl.evelopment of 28 townhouse units <br />on a4.89-acre parcel of the property, with a 8.65"acre open space parcel, <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />34 <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />...'--:'~/ <br />