Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROGER PETRONE v. BOARD COMMISSIONERS SWATARA TOWNSHIP (12/22/75)

decided: December 22, 1975.

ROGER PETRONE, FRANK F. LEONI AND ROBERT R. YOUNG, T/A BEAVER CREEK ENTERPRISES, APPELLANTS
v.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SWATARA TOWNSHIP, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in case of Roger Petrone, Frank F. Leoni and Robert R. Young, t/a Beaver Creek Enterprises v. Board of Commissioners of Swatara Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, No. 471 September Term, 1974.

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Beckley, with him Craig W. Bremer and Beckley & Grove, for appellants.

James W. Reynolds, with him David A. Wion, and Reynolds, Bihl and Schaffner, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer. President Judge Bowman and Judge Wilkinson dissent.

Author: Mencer

[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 416]

Roger Petrone, Frank F. Leoni, and Robert R. Young, trading as Beaver Creek Enterprises (appellants), and the Board of Commissioners of Swatara Township, Dauphin County (appellee), have brought before this Court a question of first impression, the resolution of which renders moot all of the other issues raised in this appeal. In essence, they ask whether the 4-4 split vote of the Board of Commissioners constituted a timely denial of approval of appellants' development plan. We hold that it does not and therefore limit our discussion to the reasoning behind this conclusion of law and the simple application of the same to the status of appellants' plan.

Pertinent to our discussion is Section 508 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10508, which provides in part:

[ 22 Pa. Commw. Page 417]

"All applications for approval of a plat . . . shall be acted upon by the governing body or the planning agency within such time limits as may be fixed in the subdivision and land development ordinance but the governing body or the planning agency shall render its decision and communicate it to the applicant not later than ninety days after such application is filed.

"(3) Failure of the governing body or agency to render a decision and communicate it to the applicant within the time and in the manner required herein shall be deemed an approval of the application in terms as presented. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

The question before us is whether the 4-4 split vote meets the definition of a "decision" as envisioned by this statutory provision. Since there is no definition of "decision" in the MPC, and the word is one in common usage, we must utilize its common meaning. Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa. C.S. § 1903(a).

We therefore give consideration to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1968) which defines "decision" as follows: "[T]he act of deciding . . . by making a judgment. . . . [A] judgment, as one formally pronounced by a court. . . . [T]he act of making up one's mind. . . ." To "decide" is similarly defined: "[T]o determine or settle (a question, controversy, or struggle) by giving victory to one side. . . . [T]o adjust or settle (anything in dispute or doubt). . . ."

The split vote of the Board of Commissioners cannot be considered a decision within this interpretive structure. Nothing has been settled, no victory has been won by either side, and the Board has clearly failed to make up its collective mind. Simply, there has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.