Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, in case of Jeffrey C. Blank v. Bensalem Township, Nos. 86-9477-03-6 and 86-9644-03-5.
Richard I. Moore, Moore & Berkowitz, for appellant.
William E. Benner, with him, Edward M. Wild, Power, Bowen & Valimont, for appellee.
Judges Colins and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Barbieri. President Judge Crumlish, Jr., did not participate in the decision of this case.
[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 282]
Bensalem Township (Township) appeals an order of the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas approving a land development application of Jeffrey C. Blank.
Blank is the legal owner of a 23.2 acre tract located within the Township. On or about August 22, 1986, Blank filed a revised preliminary land development plan with the Township seeking approval to erect a 103,300 square foot commercial shopping center on his property. The tract is located in an area zoned C-S, Planned
[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 283]
Business District, in which a commercial shopping center is a permitted use.
The plan was reviewed by the Township's zoning officer who, in a letter to the Board of Supervisors (Board) dated September 16, 1986, noted that while the plan met all zoning requirements for a C-S district, there were nine areas in which the plan failed to meet the requirements of the Township's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.
The Board entertained Blank's application at a public hearing on November 17, 1986. At that hearing, counsel for Blank represented that he would comply with eight of the items noted by the zoning officer*fn1 and introduced uncontroverted evidence that the plan did not violate the remaining provision.
After the hearing, the Board orally voted to deny Blank's application. Blank was notified of this decision by way of a letter dated December 1, 1986, which read as follows:
During the Board of Supervisors meeting on November 17, 1986 your application for the final land development for Tax Parcel 2-1-55-1 located on Neshaminy Boulevard was rejected by a three nays and one abstain vote because the plan submitted did not meet the ...