Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/01/1996

Home

, Subdivision -- Must township consider neighbors' private rights before granting subdivision? Gulla v. North Strabane Township, 676 A.2d 709 (Pennsylvania) 1996 5 Lindencreek Association owned about 19 acres of land in North Strabane ~ Township, Pa. It applied to the township for approval to subdivide the prop- erty. The township granted Preliminary approval, then final approval about a : year later. The Gullas claimed that, by deed, they had an interest in spring water that was flowing on the Lindencreek property. They sued the township, claiming the subdivision approval was invalid because they didn't receive notice of the proceedings and the township didn't properly follow the zoning code's two- step process for subdivision approval. Lindencreek said it had a right to subdivide the property because any sub- division application that conformed to the technical requirements of relevant ordinances could not be denied based on deed restrictions. : ~ The court dismissed the Gullas'. case. It found the Gullas coutd not contest the subdivision approVal because Lindencreek's application conformed to all the technical zoning requirements and that, under the law, the enforcement of private rights had no place in zoning disputes. It held nothing showed the town- ship violated the two-step zoning procedure: The township granted prelimi- : nary approval, then final approval more than a year late/:. The Gullas appealed. They again argued the township failed to follow the two-step process and that their easement right to the spring was not recorded on the subdivision plan. They relied on part of the zoning ordinance that re- : quired the location of all existing easements and proposed watercourses on the final plan. : DECISION: Afl, ed, in favor of the township. Regardless of whether the Gullas could challenge the subdivision approval, : 'the approval had to be upheld because the township properly followed zoning i procedures. The Gullas could not challenge the subdivision's approval. The alleged violation of their deed was a private right that could not be addressed during ~ zoning proceedings. In addition, deed restrictions had no bearing on subdivi- sion applications that conformed to applicable technical zoning requirements i: (Which Lindencreek's did). In addition, nothing showed the township violated ~ the two-step process. The ordinance did not require the inclusion of private easements or exist- ing private water rights on the final subdivision plan -- it required onlypublic easements and rights of way. The township was not allowed to consider the private rights of individuals before granting subdivision approval. County of Fayette v. Cossell, 430 A.2d 1226 (1982). Groxsman v. Lower Chanceford Township Board of Supervisors, 469 A.2d 996(1983).