Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

October 25, 2005 -- Page 5 larger footprint. The additional square footage in the 2003 proposal was dedi- cated to a basement that would not be visible. The township did not show what negative impact the basement had on the adjacent property owners, neighbor- hoods, or infrastructure, particularly in light of the fact that enrollment under rte 2003 proposal was reduced f~:om the 280 students approved in 2000 to only [25 students. - Moreover, the land-to-building ratio chart used. by the township, although seemingly objective, was largely meaningless. In fact, the land-to-building ratio was not applied to any other proposal and was created specifically to address the church's proposal. The ratio did not address enrollment, and, accordingly, had no relevance to intensity of use. Importantly, the township had no guidelines specifying what was an ac- ceptable ratio and what was too dense. Moreover, the ratio did not contain any guidelines as to what buildings or parts of buildings should count toward the total square footage. In the township's denial, the entire square footage of the project was considered, even though 11,000 square feet was devoted to a basement not visible to the public. Because there were no prior guidelines, this was clear error, and illegally burdened the church's freedom of relig-ion. see also: Prater v. City of Burnside, 289 F. 3d 417 (2002). .~'ee also.· Episcopal Student Foundation v. City of Ann Arbor, 341 F. Supp. 2d 691 (2004). Zoning Decision -- Board has 90 days to make decisions Because of landowner filing two applications, board fails to do so Citation: Philomeno & Salamone v. Board of Supervisors of Upper Merion ~)wnship, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 337 C.D. 2005 (2005) P ENNS YLVANIA (08/25/05) -- PhilOmeno & S almone was a company that oWned a tract of land in Upper Morion Township. It wanted to subdivide its property for development into 17 single-family homes and a cluster development of 28 townhouses. · Philomeno filed two applications for the property. One application sought subdivision approval, while a later application sought a conditional use permit for a cluster plan overlay. under the local ordinance, the Board of Supervisors of Upper Merion Town- ship had 90 days to rule on the subdivision application. However, it failed to do so, even with two extensions ag-reed to by Philomeno. Philomeno sued, and the court ruled in its favor. It found the board failed to enter a decision on the subdivision by the legally mandated deadline. Conse- quently, it ordered the township to approve the application. The township appealed, arguing its failure to make a decision was' ex- cusable under the circumstances. 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 55