Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of In Re: Appeal of David Fiori, Realtor, Inc. from Decision of the Lower Southampton Township Board of Supervisors, No. 77-8969-04-5.
Daniel J. Lawler, of Lawler & Gonzales, with him Ronald J. Smolow, of Groen & Smolow, for appellant.
Herbert K. Sudfeld, Jr., with him Richard P. McBride, Power, Bowen & Valimont, for appellee.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
The question on appeal before this Court is the propriety of the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County directing the Board of Supervisors of Lower Southampton Township (Board) to approve the land development plan submitted to it on March 28, 1977 by the appellee, David Fiori, Realtor, Inc.
Appellee originally filed an application with the Board on March 28, 1977 for approval to proceed with the development of a multi-tenant shopping center on a one acre parcel of real estate located within Lower
Southampton Township. At the Board's request, appellee twice granted extensions of time beyond the ninety day review period mandated by Section 508 of the Municipalities Planning Code*fn1 (Code) for the approval or rejection of the shopping center development plan. The last such extension of time was to run until August 18, 1977.
In the latter part of June 1977 the appellee submitted an alternate proposal to the Board requesting it to consider the feasibility of constructing a restaurant on the land rather than a shopping center.
At a public meeting held on August 18, 1977 the Board unanimously rejected both the application for the shopping center development and the alternate proposal for a restaurant use. No written notice of the decision was delivered to the appellee until the Township Manager wrote to the appellee on September 8, 1977 informing him of the decision. The letter noted "contradictions" with Sections 100 and 603 of the Lower Southampton Zoning Ordinance as the reasons for the rejections.
The Board contends that the lower court erred in not finding that the appellee's shopping center application had been withdrawn at the time of the alternate proposal for a restaurant use and that therefore it was not required to act upon the shopping ...