Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of In Re: Appeal of GFM Associates from Decision of Board of Commissioners of the Township of Mt. Lebanon, Nos. SA 147 of 1974 and SA 148 of 1974.
Guy L. Warman, with him John Michael Studeny, and Metz, Cook, Hanna & Kelly, for appellants.
J. W. Montgomery, III, with him Edwin L. Klett, and Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 477]
The appellant, GFM Associates (GFM), desiring to establish a mobile home park on land in Mt. Lebanon Township, Allegheny County, submitted a preliminary development plan for the approval of the township commissioners pursuant to Section 508 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10508.*fn1 A letter accompanying the submission written by GFM's counsel told the commissioners that the plan did not comply with the township's subdivision ordinance but that none of the requirements of the subdivision ordinance applied to mobile home parks because the ordinance contains no separate provisions regulating mobile home parks.*fn2 The writers further declared that provisions of the township zoning ordinance which prevent the development as proposed were unconstitutional and void. The township commissioners reviewed the plan as required by Section 508 and denied approval for many reasons sounding in its subdivision and zoning ordinances. GFM filed two appeals*fn3 from the township commissioners' orders, the identical operative provisions of which are as follows:
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 478]
(a) At the time the application was filed, Appellee did not have any Ordinance which established any standards or requirements or imposed any regulations for mobilehome parks.
(c) Reasonable regulations for the development of land as a mobilehome park with private driveways, private utility lines and private appurtenances to be used in common by tenants so long as the land is used for a mobilehome park have to be substantially different from regulations applicable to a permanent subdivision of land for the sale of lots which involves dedication of streets and easements in perpetuity.
(d) Section 501 of Article V of the Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. 10501, expressly provides that:
'Provisions regulating mobilehome parks shall be set forth in separate and distinct articles of any subdivision and land development ordinance adopted pursuant to Article V. . . .'
(e) Under authority of the Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. 10501 et seq., Appellee adopted its 'Subdivision Ordinance' No. 2524, approved October 9, 1972, but prior to the date Appellant filed its application for approval of plans Appellee had failed to set forth any provisions regulating mobilehome parks either in separate and distinct Articles or otherwise.
(f) By definitions and by unreasonable provisions imposing restrictions which cannot possibly be met contained in its Zoning Ordinance No. 2519, adopted June 26, 1972, Appellee has attempted to completely ...