Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Z.Bi April 25, 1999 -- Page 7 of the board's, decision, stating the trust needed critical information regarding the board's conditions as soon as possible. In November 1997, 56 days after the meeting at which the board approved the trust's request, the board passed a resolution imposing eight conditions on the trust's proposed mineral extraction. 'The trust received the resolution in January 1998, 120 days after the initial hearing. In February i998, the trust sent to the county a "notice of deemed approval" based on the board's failure to issue a final decision on the trust's application within the statutory time period. State law required the board to issue a written decision within 45 days after the last hearing, accompanied by findings of fact and its conclusions, and stated that if the board failed to issue a decision within 45 days it was deemed to have approved the application. State law also pro- vided that when a decision was rendered in favor of the applicant due to the board's failure to give a timely decision, the board had to give public notice of the decision or else the applicant could do so. The neighbors appealed the trust's Public notice to court, asking the court to reverse the "deemed approval" and to reinstate the board's conditions. The neighbors argued the board complied with the 45-day requirement because the board decided to conditionally approve the special exception and communi- cated its decision to the trust within 17 days of the hearing. The court dismissed the neighbors' appeal, finding the board failed to issue its decision within the statutory time period. The neighbors appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board failed to issue a proper decision within the statutory deadline. The trust's application was approved without any conditions. State/aw required the board to issue a meaningful decision within 45 days and to give the trust sufficient information to determine whether or not to ap- peal, but the only action the board took within the 45-day limit was a vote to conditionally approve the trust's application and to notify the trust of its deci- sion. The trust wasn't informed of the conditions the board imposed, and with- out that information it was unable to appeal the board's decision or move ahead with its plans to mine the property. The board didn't decide on specific condi- tions until 56 days after the hearing and didn't inform the trust of its conditions until 120 days after the hearing. The 45-daY limit served to promote efficiency and timeliness in zoning board operations. Here, the conditional approval the board gave within the statutory time was essentially meaningless, and caused the trust to suffer months of unnecessary delay. see also: Youngsville v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Youngsville, 450 A.2d 1086 (1982). see also: Mullen v. Zoning Hearing Board of Collingdale Borough, 691 A.2d 998 (1997).