Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2014

Home

January 10, 2014 I Volume 8 ( Issue 1 Zoning Bulletin road. Second, the County proposed to construct a new 5,000-foot long road to be called `Business Park Drive," which would provide the main means of ingress and egress for the proposed business park. In May 2010, the County submitted a subdivision and land develop- ment plan for the business park to the Township Supervisors. The Town- ship rejected the County's plan because it did not provide for sidewalks along Packerton Hollow Lane and because Business Park Drive would not satisfy the requirements of the Township's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance ("SALDO") for a 20-foot-wide cart path and a six -foot -wide shoulder on each side. The County then filed a petition under the County Road Law (16 P.S. § § 2701 to 2787) to reconstruct and take ownership of Packerton Hollow Lane and to construct Business Park Drive. The Township intervened to oppose the petition because the proposed roads would not comply with the Township's SALDO. The trial court denied the County's petition because its proposed roads did not satisfy the SALDO. In doing so, the trial court rejected the County's argument that the County Road Law preempted the Township's SALDO. The trial court concluded that the County Road Law was not intended to supersede the Township's SALDO and that the consequences of requiring the County to comply were minimal given that the County could exercise the power to open county roads and comply with the SALDO. The County appealed. On appeal, the County argued that the language of the County Road Law expressed its preeminence over a second class township's SALDO. The County contended that any other interpretation would defeat the purposes of the County Road Law because a single county road might cross several townships, each of which may have dif- ferent dimensional requirements. Further, the County noted that it would bear the expense of constructing and maintaining the proposed County roads, and argued that it did not advance sound public policy to allow the Township, effectively, to spend County money. The Township maintained that the SALDO applied to the County's proposed roads because they were integral to the County's land develop- ment plan. The Township noted that because there was no conflict be- tween the County Road Law and the SALDO, the County could comply with both. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the County Road Law did not preempt the Township's SALDO to the extent that those requirements applied to County roads proposed as part of its subdivision and land development plan. In determining whether, as the County had argued, the County Road Law preempted the SALDO, the court looked to a two-part test. First it looked at both the County Road Law and the Pennsylvania Municipalities 8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters