Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Z.g. March 25, 2004 -- Page 3 Appeal -- Board of supervisors approves plan while litigation pend~g Plan never submitted to zoning hearing board Citation: Assid v. Lower Makefield Township, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 100 c.D. 2003 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA (02/13/04) -- In 1988, Lower Makefield Township and Bellemead Development Corporation entered into amaster plan approval a~ee- ment following the township's approval of Bellemead's development plan for appro~mately 186 acres of real estate. The entire tract was zoned general business/industrial. The plan called for a large commercial and industrial park with well over' one million square feet of gross leasable space. The township planning commission, the board of su- pervisors, and the zoning hearing board reviewed and approved the plan. In 1999, Matrix/AEW Acquisitions entered into an agreement to build Matrix's Octagon Center, which included certain other uses in place of the approved commercial and industrial ones; including office, retail, and hotel space. Accordingly, the master plan was amended to include the proposed center. Local residents opposed the amended plan. However, while the local resi- dents were pursuing litigation, the Lower Makefield Township Board of Su~ pervisors approved and granted Matrix's application for f'mal subdivision and land development approval for Phase I of the plan. The residents sued, arguing the final subdivision and land development approvals had to fkst go to the zoning hearing board. The court ruled in the township's favor. The residents appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board of supervisors' actions were in error. Stare law clearly stated a zoning hearing board had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final judgments in variance applications, whereas a municipality's governing body had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final judgments in applications for approval of subdivisions or land developments. It was clear any question or restriction on the use or development of the property had to be considered by the governing body at the fact-finding phase of the procedure. Any zoning problems had to be considered at the planning stage ibr the purpose of approving or disapproving the plan. Other,vise, the governing body would not have the required information to make an int'ormed decision. The board of superviso, rs authorized the development ,~x~ithout submitting the matter to the zoning hearing board. Because the zoning hearing board de- termined the "use" of a building, it was impossible for the board of supervi- .~ot's ro make an informed decision without first submitting it to the zoning hearing board. ,';,::~' ~.~!.;',':,.' ...... Graham. ,' Z,:2ni;t~ [4ea;-in.,.., P,,')ard. .555 -[ .ztl -~ ' 79/!oOO~. ........ :d) 2}(;0,~ r}LIiRlan ?ut;tishin§ :h'oup. Any reprcauction is ;}ro,'qibited. ?or more information piease .'.ail (ai7~ :a2-0O4a. 131