Appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, in case of Steven Coretsky v. Board of Commissioners of Butler Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, MsD No. 84-058, Book 43, Page 308.
James W. Gerlach, Lindsay & Lutz, P.C., for appellant.
Bruno A. Muscatello, Stepanian & Muscatello, for appellee.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Doyle, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 29]
Appellant, Steven Coretsky, seeks review of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County which denied his motion for post-trial relief.*fn1 We reverse the trial court.
Appellant owned a parcel of land which was part of a previously recorded subdivision plan. Appellant's parcel consisted of twelve separate lots, each with a twenty-five foot frontage. He submitted an application for a subdivision plan approval which consisted of joining together three twenty-five foot lots as one lot, each with a seventy-five foot frontage, in order to conform to the building lot requirements of the zoning law.
The Butler Township Planning Commission approved of the plan. Appellant then went to the Butler Township Board of Commissioners (Board) for approval, as required. The Board requested further information concerning the type of street paving and nature of sewer facilities, all of which were supplied by appellant.
[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 30]
The Board then notified appellant by letter that his request for subdivision approval was disapproved. Without citing the specific ordinance provisions, the Board indicated that the disapproval was based on appellant's failure to meet the township's specifications as they apply to roads and utilities. The record shows that by having attended meetings concerning this application, appellant was aware of the road and utility requirements.
The trial court, relying specifically on Johnston Appeal, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 220, 450 A.2d 785 (1982), affirmed the order of the Board disapproving the subdivision plan, holding that appellant was not "duped, delayed, or deluded" because he had prior knowledge of what was required.
Our scope of review is to determine whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Seltzer v. Zoning Board, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 520, 395 A.2d 1041 (1978).
At the trial court hearing, appellant raised the issue of "deemed approval" pursuant to section 508(3) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Code), Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. § 10508(3). Since this issue was raised in the trial court, it can be raised on appeal. Center City Residents Association v. Zoning Board of ...