Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 8 . March 1996 Z.B. In 198~, the township had yet to implement the installation and transfer parts of itsiplan, so the department ordered it to update the plan. In OctOber 1986, the township submitted its updated plan, proposing to connect twb residential developments to the neighboring borough's treatment plant. After' discussions with the department, it revised the plan. The depart- ment rejected both versions, finding neither adequately addressed the need for sewers in the township's developed areas. The township hired a consultant to determine from water samples and other tests wheth:~er sewers were needed in the developed areas. In August 1988, it submitted ~j third official plan. The plan stated the township's opinion that its sewage disposal needs could be met for the next 10 years without a sewer system. The department reviewed the plan and then did its own soil and water tests. In a letter, !t notified the township there was "a serious health hazard" in the developed ~reas. It also said "[o]wners of wells in developed areas should con- sider bacterial treatment of drinking water until the township resolves prob- lems with ohgoing groundwater contamination." At a Dee. 21, 1988 meeting, the department made it clear to the township it would not a~prove the third plan. The township asked to review the department's sampling data. The department responded in a Dec. 30th letter that because of the township's request, it would need an extra 60 days to make a decision on the plan. The township sent a letter stating its request to review the sampling data did not mea~. it wanted to reconsider the plan update. The township also argued it was too l~te for the department to extend the 120-day.review period, which started whe~ the plan was submitted in August 1988 and ended Dec. 27, 1988. Under a statb statute, if the department did not approve an official plan within 120 days of{its submission, the plan was deemed approved. On Feb. ~24, 1989, the department formally rejected the third official plan, finding it fai~ed to address the township's existing and long-term sewage needs. The township appealed to the Environmental Hearing Board, claiming the plan should be d~emed approved because the department made its decision well past the 120~.day deadline. The boa~,d found the department made its decision on time because the township's r~quest to review the sampling data waived the 120-day limit. The tow~iship asked a court to review the board's decision. DECISION: c. Reversed. The town, hip's plan was deemed approved. The department failed to respond within the 1;ii0-day time limit. It was unperstood at the Dec. 21 meeting that the department intended to reject the toW. nship's third plan. The township asked only to review the sam- pling data, n6X to use the data to submit a revised plan. There was no reason the department COuld not formally approve or reject the plan within the 120-day limit, so it ha~ to be deemed approved. Gorton v.}SiIver Lake Town,ship, 494 A.2d 26 (1985). Brauns v. iBorough of Swarthmore, 288 A.2d 830 (1972).