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.

APPEAL WILLIAM H. PAUL AND DR. W. RICHARD KETTERING FROM DECISION LANCASTER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ETC. WILLIAM H. PAUL (07/19/82)

decided: July 19, 1982.

IN RE: THE APPEAL OF WILLIAM H. PAUL AND DR. W. RICHARD KETTERING FROM THE DECISION OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ETC. WILLIAM H. PAUL, APPELLANT


Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County in the case of In Re: The Appeal of William H. Paul and Dr. W. Richard Kettering from the decision of the Lancaster County Planning Commission on the application of the Fidelity Bank, Lancaster Arms Associates, National Development Enterprises, Berger Brothers, and/or Max Berger, Trust Book No. 46, Page 326.

COUNSEL

Kenneth C. Notturno, Notturno, Russell, Krafft & Gruber, for appellant.

Charles B. Grove, Jr., Blakinger, Grove & Chillas, P.C., for appellee, Lancaster County Planning Commission.

Lewis I. Farina, with him Richard P. Nuffort, Geisenberger, Zimmerman, Pfannebecker & Atlee, for intervenors, Lancaster Arms Associates, National Development Enterprises, Berger Brothers and Max Berger.

President Judge Crumlish and Judges Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 509]

This is a subdivision regulation case, seeking review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, which dismissed objector William H. Paul's appeal from the Lancaster County Planning Commission's grant of certain specific waivers to developer Lancaster Arms Associates.

This case involves the Lancaster County subdivision ordinance, which is administered by the Lancaster County Planning Commission; no township, borough or city ordinance is involved. We note also that Lancaster County has no zoning ordinance and no zoning hearing board.

We must decide two issues: In this subdivision control case, what remedy does the objector have when the political subdivision has no zoning hearing board? Was it incumbent upon the objector to exhaust the administrative appeal process provided by the county ordinance?

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 510]

The Municipalities Planning Code (MPC),*fn1 Section 1007*fn2 provides that persons aggrieved by a municipal agency's decision permitting development on the land of another shall submit their objections to the "zoning hearing board," thus establishing a statutory procedure under which aggrieved persons may secure adjudicative review of a planning commission's action in its administration of a subdivision ordinance. See Ryan, Pennsylvania Zoning Law and Practice, Section 11.3.2 (1979). However, because Lancaster County has no zoning hearing board, MPC § 1007 cannot be applicable here.

Nevertheless, Lancaster County Subdivision Ordinance § 804.02*fn3 provides ...


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.