Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in case of In Re: Appeal of the Gillies Corporation from the Resolution and Order of the Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 75-3106-11-5.
Edward J. Hollin, Stanford S. Hunn Associates, for appellant.
William Thatcher, Biehn & Thatcher, for appellee.
Judges Mencer, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 527]
Gillies Corporation (Appellant) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County which affirmed the decision of the Milford Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board) to deny the Appellant's application for an amendment to a previously granted special exception. We affirm.
Appellant is the owner of a 16.44-acre tract of land, 10.25 acres of which are located in Milford Township.*fn1 Appellant applied for and was granted a special exception on January 15, 1973 to construct apartment units on its property, subject to eleven stated conditions. Most pertinent to this appeal is Condition No. 6 which provides that, "No Zoning Permit shall be issued by the Zoning Officer after January 15, 1975."
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 528]
On October 18, 1974 Appellant filed an application with the Board requesting that Condition No. 6 be amended so as to require that no zoning permit be issued after July 15, 1975. Appellant contended that the six-month extension was necessary in order for Appellant to achieve compliance with Condition No. 3 which relates to the use of public sewer facilities. After two hearings on the application the Board, on March 6, 1975, refused to grant the amendment, citing as reasons therefor the failure of Appellant to comply with several of the special exception conditions and the fact that an ordinance was then pending which would not permit apartment units on Appellant's property. Appellant appealed to the court of common pleas which ultimately*fn2 affirmed the Board's decision based on the pending ordinance doctrine.*fn3 The present appeal followed.
The threshold issue presented by Appellant in this appeal is whether or not the Board erred in denying Appellant's application for modification based on the pending ordinance doctrine.
Our scope of review where, as here, the court below takes no additional evidence is limited to a determination of whether the Board has abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Board of Supervisors of Solebury Township Appeal, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 267, 412 A.2d 163 (1980).
The pending ordinance doctrine provides that a municipality may deny an ...