Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in the case of Bucks County Housing Development Corporation v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Plumstead; Township of Plumstead; Frank J. Earnheart; Robert C. J. McKinstry and Marie K. McKinstry; Frederick J. Rarig and Reva Mae Rarig; and Plumstead Township Civic Association, No. 76-6530-09-5.
Thomas J. Profy, III, Begley, Carlin & Mandio, for appellant.
George M. Bush, Hartzel & Bush, for appellee, Township of Plumstead.
Frank J. Earnheart, for appellee, Plumstead Township Civic Association.
Judges Williams, Jr., Barry and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
The Bucks County Housing Development Corporation (appellant) appeals from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County denying its request for an extension of time for filing final development plans for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) and revoking appellant's tentative approval for the PRD pursuant to Section 710(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).*fn1 This appeal is a continuation of a long standing controversy which has been before this Court on several earlier occasions.*fn2
On October 19, 1973, appellant filed an appeal to the Plumstead Township Zoning Hearing Board (board) challenging the constitutionality of the PRD provisions of the 1973 Plumstead Township (township) Zoning Ordinance. A tentative PRD plan accompanied the appeal.
After a series of hearings, the board, in April 1976, unilaterally suspended the hearings without rendering a decision because of a dispute with appellant over certain costs and fees associated therewith. On July 13, 1976, appellant instituted a mandamus action requesting a "deemed decision" in its favor pursuant
to MPC § 908(9),*fn3 which was granted by the common pleas court and affirmed by this Court (BCHDC II). Our Supreme Court, per curiam, subsequently denied the Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by the township and the intervenors.*fn4
In March, 1980, appellant petitioned the court of common pleas for a supplemental order to clarify the "deemed approval" order in response to the township's insistence that the 1973 ordinance would be applied to appellant's PRD. On April 22, 1981, Judge Rufe entered an order specifying the sections of the ordinance which applied to appellant's PRD and those sections from which the project was exempt. It was at that juncture that Judge Rufe granted appellant's request for a one year period to submit its final plans for the PRD even though the MPC*fn5 provides only ...