Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

March 1996 -- Page 7 In June 1988, the board approved the final subdivision plat. That month, the town planning director issued the developer a certificate of occupancy for the six condominium units. However, the developer never connected the units to the municipal water supply. The developer conveyed five units in 1988 and 1989; the bank that financed the construction later sold the sixth at foreclosure. In December 1990, the town planning director sent the association a letter notifying unit owners that the developer never installed the required water line. The director suggested the association split the cost of installing the line with the two owners of the neigh- boring lot. After installing the water line, the association and the individual unit own- ers sued the developer and the town. They claimed the town breached its duty to protect them from the cost of installing the water line to their homes. The court dismissed the claim, and the owners appealed. According to the owners, once the town required the developer to install a municipal water line, it had to make sure the developer did so. They said they justifiably relied on the town's duty when they bought their homes. Alternatively, they relied on a state statute that allowed towns to enact regulations to prevent subdivisions that would injure "health, safety, or prosperity by reason of the lack of water sup- ply." The owners claimed the statute applied to them because their "prosper- ity'' (which they defined as their personal financial situation) was injured when the town failed to enforce its regulations. DECISION: Affirmed. The town had no duty to ensure the developer fulfilled the water-line condi- tion of the subdivision plan. The owners failed to allege a contractual duty or special relationship between them and the town. Their reliance on the board's approval of the plan was not enough. "A municipality does not assume a duty merely by virtue of having enacted regulations." The statute the owners cited was not meant to protect them. The word "pros- perity'' referred to a cornmu;ffty's fiscal well-being, not to individuals' personal finances. Island Shores Estates Condominium Association v. City of Concord, 625 A.2d 629 (] 992). Waste Disposal ~ L. Did Township's Request to See Records Extend Review Deadline? Board of Supervisors of Middle £axton Township v. Del2a;'tme~t of E;~viroJ~mental Resources, 667 A.2d 447 (Pennsylva~ffa) J995 In 1975, the Board of Supervisors of Middle Paxton Township submitted to the state Department of Environmental Resources its official plan for sew- age services as required under the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act. The plan included installation of sewers in certain developed areas and transfer of sewage to a treatment plant in a neighboring borough. The department approved the plan.