Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

_:'..:~'-'=..;...."'~_..::...,::__,.:;..::"-'~~_ __~..o-.--_~~__~___________ .------ Zoning Bulletin -- April 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No.8 :.",- ( ) and a 4.38-acre recreational use parce1. The Board denied the condition- al use application. (That decision was affumedon appea1.) Meanwhile, the Board did not act on P & _ S's initial subdivision ap- plication by December 24. Shortly after the denial of the conditional use applicatiOn, P & S filed an ~ction in court. It asserted that its initial sub- division applitation should be deemed approved under ~ 508 because of the Board's failure to timely act. The trial court agreed with P & S. It deemed t~e subdivision applica- tion approved. The Board appealed. It argued that submission of a new plan (i.e., the conditional use application) relieved it of the obligation to review the original plan (i.e., the subdivision application). The Commonwealth Court agreed with the Board and reversed. It held that by filing the con- ditional use application, P & S "effectively abandoned the subdivision plan application." p & S appealed. DECISION: Reversed. />-0.,) , The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that P & S's subsequent con- ditional use application did not extend time for the Board to act on P & 5's subdivision application. The court explained that while revising a land use application ex- tended ~ 508's 90-day decision period, any such revision had to be vol- untary and contain substantial changes. Here, the court found P & S's conditional use application was not intended to revise its subdivision ap- plication. The conditional use application dealt with zoning issues; and the original subdivision application dealt with land use issues. The court explained that "alternate plans [we]re different from revisions of exist- ing plans." This, said the court, was especially true when, as here, the plans "[we]re filed under different ordinances and involve[d] different requests." , Disagreeing with the Commonwealth Court, the court concluded that p & S's subdivision application had not been withdrawn or abandoned. Accordingly, the Board was required to timely act on it. Bec?use the Board failed to act on it within the mandatory time period under ~ 508, it was deemed approved. See also: Capital Inv. Development Corp. v. Jayes, 30 Pa. Commw.283, 373 A.2d 785 (1977) ) -,,--/ See also: Appeal of David Fiori, Realt01; Inc., 55 Pa. Commw. 59, 422 A.2d 1207 (1980). @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 35