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.

DENNIS AND MARJORIE AKIN AND RICHARD AND NANCY TRITT v. SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD AND EBENER ASSOCIATES (09/27/88)

decided: September 27, 1988.

DENNIS AND MARJORIE AKIN AND RICHARD AND NANCY TRITT, APPELLANTS
v.
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD AND EBENER ASSOCIATES, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County in the case of Dennis and Marjorie Akin and Richard and Nancy Tritt v. South Middleton Township Zoning Hearing Board v. Ebener Associates, No. 3753 Civil, 1986.

COUNSEL

P. Richard Wagner, Mancke, Wagner & Marcello, for appellants.

Thomas J. Williams, with him, Ivo V. Otto, III, Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto, for appellees.

Judges Craig and Barry, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.

Author: Barry

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 114]

Dennis and Marjorie Akin and Richard and Nancy Tritt (protestants) appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County dismissing their appeal from a decision of the South Middleton Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board). The protestants had contested the approval of a subdivision application granted by the South Middleton Township Supervisors (Township) to Ebener Associates (developer).*fn1

On June 5, 1985, the Township approved the developer's conditional use application for a thirty-three unit townhouse community. On August 7, 1986, the Township approved the developer's subdivision plan conditioned on the furnishing of security. Subsequently, on August 29, 1986, the protestants filed their appeal with the Board. On September 30, 1986, the Board held a hearing on the appeal. On December 4, 1986, the Board rendered its decision finding that the protestants had raised no matters upon which the Township could have properly refused to approve the developer's final subdivision plan.

The protestants then appealed to the trial court which affirmed the Board. This appeal follows and we affirm the trial court.

In reviewing the Board's decision*fn2 we are mindful that approval of a subdivision plan may not be withheld

[ 120 Pa. Commw. Page 115]

    when it complies with all applicable regulations. Goodman v. Board of Commissioners of the Township of South Whitehall, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 35, 411 A.2d 838 (1980). Further, a subdivision plan may not be required to conform to standards not contained in the subdivision ordinance. Montgomery Township v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp., 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 422 A.2d 897 (1980).

First, we will address the protestants' argument that the Board abused its discretion in failing to deny the developer's application in the absence of the furnishing of security pursuant to Section 509 of the MPC, ...


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.