Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of National Development Corporation v. Planning Commission of the Township of Harrison, No. SA 379 of 1980.
Joel P. Aaronson, Baskin and Sears, for appellants.
Jon Hogue, Titus, Marcus & Shapira, with him John M. Means, Markel, Levenson, Schafer & Means, for appellee.
Judges Mencer, Williams, Jr. and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Palladino.
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 247]
This is an appeal by appellant National Development Corporation (NADCO) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. The court's order dismissed NADCO's appeal, filed pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC),*fn1 from a decision of the Harrison Township Planning Commission (appellee).
On November 13, 1979 NADCO submitted to the Planning Commission an application for preliminary approval of a proposed subdivision and land development plan. The Planning Commission rendered a decision rejecting the application on March 17, 1980, and NADCO was notified of this decision by letter of the same date.
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 248]
On March 27, 1980 NADCO instituted an action in mandamus in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. In its complaint, appellant alleged that the Planning Commission had failed to act upon its application within the time period prescribed by Section 508 of the MPC,*fn2 and that therefore, its application was deemed approved thereunder. Appellant
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 249]
accordingly requested the court below to declare its application preliminarily approved as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, to direct the Planning Commission to grant such preliminary approval.*fn3
In addition to the action in mandamus, NADCO filed, in the court below, on May 1, 1980, a statutory zoning appeal from the Planning Commission's decision under Section 1006 of the MPC.*fn4 As in the mandamus action, appellant sought recognition and enforcement of the deemed approval of its application.
Subsequent to the initiation of the mandamus action and the filing of its statutory appeal, NADCO filed a motion for peremptory judgment in mandamus. Following oral argument and upon consideration of the briefs of counsel, the lower ...