Harvin v. Board of Commissioners
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 594
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Applicant owns 4.22-acre parcel in R-l district; Township PRD II ordinance created eligible housing development.
- Applicant submitted Boothwyn Estates PRD II plan for four twins and twenty-three townhomes; hearings held in 2008; formal application filed 2008.
- Plan shows 50-foot ROW and 24-foot cart-way; amendment to 34-foot cart-way planned but not submitted.
- Open space stated as 1.17 acres; open space largely composed of buffers and stormwater facilities; engineer acknowledged limited recreation potential.
- Fire Marshal requested an emergency access road not provided in the Plan; no amendment addressing emergency access submitted.
- Board denied the application on Sept. 2, 2008, finding noncompliance with cartway width, open space, and emergency access requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether open space requirement was met under Section 1208B.2.a. | Harvin argues open space met via 1.17 acres as common open space. | Board contends stormwater facilities may count as public facilities and exclude open space. | Trial court erred; open space not met because facilities excluded from open space. |
| Whether stormwater facilities are proper 'public facilities' excluding open space. | Open space area includes stormwater facilities that should count toward open space. | Facilities serve the development and surrounding area; they are 'public facilities' under the ordinance. | Public facilities exclusion applies; facilities reduce open space below minimum. |
| Whether the Plan complied with cartway width, emergency access, and related standards. | Plan concedes need for amendment to meet cartway and emergency access requirements. | Board properly found noncompliance with minimum cartway width and lack of emergency access. | Board's denial upheld; plan not compliant with objective standards. |
| Whether the trial court lacked authority to direct Plan to proceed as if approved. | Trial court relied on MPC/PRD provisions to allow tentative approval with conditions. | Municipalities must deny where objective standards are not met; trial court erred to permit conditional approval. | Reversed; Board's decision reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robal Associates, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township, 999 A.2d 630 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (open space must meet objective, substantive requirements for tentative approval)
- In re Appeal of the Marietta Gravity Water Company, 10 D. & C.4th 50 (Pa. 1990) (definition of 'public facilities' under PRD ordinance governs open space analysis)
- A & L Investments v. Zoning Hearing Board of City of McKeesport, 829 A.2d 775 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (public use determinations and standing for planning decisions)
- Kassouf v. Township of Scott, 584 Pa. 219 (Pa. 2005) (scope of review for appellate challenges to planning decisions)
- Dream Mile Club, Inc. v. Tobyhanna Township Board of Supervisors, 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 309 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard and substantial evidence review in land use cases)