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.

BUCKS COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. TOWNSHIP PLUMSTEAD (06/30/76)

decided: June 30, 1976.

BUCKS COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, APPELLANT
v.
TOWNSHIP OF PLUMSTEAD, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of Bucks County Housing Development Corporation v. Township of Plumstead, No. 73-9618-03-6.

COUNSEL

George T. Kelton, with him Thomas J. Profy, III, and Begley, Carlin, Mandio, Kelton and Popkin, for appellant.

George M. Bush, with him Hartzel and Bush, for appellee.

Frank J. Earnheart, with him Robert C. J. McKinstry, and Frederick J. Rarig, for amicus curiae, Plumstead Township Civic Association.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Crumlish

[ 25 Pa. Commw. Page 355]

Bucks County Housing Development Corporation (Appellant) appeals an opinion and order of the Court of Common Pleas which affirmed Plumstead Township's (Appellee) Board of Supervisors' action in rejecting the tentative proposal for a Planned Residential Development (PRD).

We affirm.

Pivotal in this appeal is the common law doctrine of pending ordinance.*fn1 It is the settled law of this Commonwealth that a permit can be denied if, at the

[ 25 Pa. Commw. Page 356]

    time of the application, there is pending an amendment to a zoning ordinance which would prohibit the use of the land for which the permit is sought. Boron Oil v. Kimple, 445 Pa. 326, 284 A.2d 744 (1971); Hertrick's Appeal, 391 Pa. 148, 137 A.2d 310 (1958).

Appellant contends that the pending ordinance doctrine does not apply to this application because at the time of submission of the PRD, there had not been sufficient public declaration by Appellee that it had resolved to consider a particular rezoning scheme. Boron Oil, supra. Additionally, it argues that the proposed ordinance was specifically aimed to exclude its application; and therefore, the trial court erred when it refused to consider the constitutional issue. We disagree.

There is no merit to Appellant's argument that stricter provisions of Section 508 of the Municipalities Planning Code*fn2 (MPC) control this application for a PRD and that the common law doctrine of pending ordinance is not applicable. This section provides that: "All applications for approval of a plat (other than those governed by Article VII)" (Emphasis added.) are within the purview of this Article. This application and ordinance involve a planned residential development, clearly under the regulation of Article VII of the MPC. See Cohen v. ...


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.