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.

DE-ANN v. EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP BOARD SUPERVISORS (01/19/83)

decided: January 19, 1983.

DE-ANN, A PARTNERSHIP, TRADING AS MANADA CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK, APPELLANT
v.
EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County in case of De-Ann, a partnership, t/a Manada Creek Mobile Home Park v. East Hanover Township Board of Supervisors, No. 2614 S 1980.

COUNSEL

Ronald M. Katzman, Goldberg, Evans & Katzman, for appellant.

Richard H. Wix, Wix, Wenger & Weidner, for appellee.

Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 260]

The appellant, De-Ann, is a partnership which owns and operates a mobile home park located near a creek in East Hanover Township, Dauphin County. Its appeal is from a judgment entered against it, after trial by judge without a jury, of its suit in mandamus by which it sought to obtain an order requiring the township to accept as deemed approved its application for approval of preliminary plans of subdivision for an extension of its mobile home park by reason of the alleged failure of the township, to act on its application in timely fashion.

The record does not disclose how the sewage from the appellant's mobile home park is disposed of; but, whatever the means employed, it was, in 1979, malfunctioning to a degree that the State Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and the township had importuned or directed the appellant to submit plans for improved or new facilities.

On December 28, 1979, an employee of a firm of engineers and surveyors engaged by De-Ann appeared at the township office and left with the township

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 261]

    secretary a plan and other papers. The plan was titled "topographical plan" and depicted the appellant's existing mobile home park and two other areas divided into paper lots, designated Phase II and Phase III service areas. Also depicted on the plan was the location of a proposed sewage treatment plant. The documents other than the plan left with the township secretary on that day were two completed DER forms called respectively, Component II and Component IV, Planning Module, describing a proposed facility for collecting, conveying and treating sewage at the appellant's mobile home park. The person who delivered the topographical plan and sewage facility planning modules said nothing concerning their purpose and the appellant, so far as the record shows, never thereafter provided the township with a written notice of their purpose.

On December 28, 1979, and at all times thereafter, the township subdivision regulations provided that applications for approval of preliminary plans of subdivisions should be filed with the township engineer.

In December, 1979, the appellant's land was located in a zoning district where the use of land for a mobile home park was permitted. In January, 1980 the township zoning ordinance was amended so as to place a substantial part of the appellant's lands within the flood plain zoning district in which mobile home use was forbidden.

In January, 1980, the township's subdivision regulations were amended to require for the first time that a filing fee be paid with respect to each application for ...


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.