The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-05877 c' " . ~ ",_,'" ~' r ' ,"" __~C" ", ",^,,"~~~' '" I. C/I- S'f>7? ... SENDER: ~ . Complete i\emo 1 and/or 2 for acIdIIIon8I_. 'i . Complete Items 3.,4&, and 4b. I I . Print your name and address on the reverse of this form 80 that we can return this ..rd fo you. . ~ this form 10 the front of the mai~ece, or on the back It apace ~ not . I:rite "R9tlJf(1 RecsIpt Requested" on the maUpleoe below the article number. t! . The Return Receipt wlU &how 10 whom the article was deUvered and the date :ti delivered. Ii 3. Article Addressed to: J ... fi ~ Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township 6475 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg. PA 17055-2391 121 Certified o Insured o COD 5. Received By: (Print Name) I .lI 1~ D.omesticRetum Receipt \ ~ 0 0 - ,,;-\ 0 J -ceo :3 -~:~,;~ t!'l\ - .'(Jl:;J mS?: if. ()(.) ::< .? . :."2.-:;~ '20 ~ Go ~O .r__r1'l - 0 AQ - :::.; :PC ~ .!t 01 f'.) l~H " "' ." "" ". , . /" PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. Lettermen Inc. Appellants vs. Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township, No. 01-5876 Civil 2001 01-5877 V Appellee 1. Matter to be argued: Land use appeals consolidated by February 8, 2001 Order 2. Counsel who will argue case: (a) for Appellant: G. Bryan Salzmann, Esquire Salzmann, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, P.C. 455 Phoenix Drive, Suite A Chambersburg, PA 17201 Steven 1. Fishman, Esquire Salzmann, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, P.C. 95 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) for Appellee: StevenA. Stine, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, P A 17036 3. I will notifY all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. m">,"""R")~\f','"",,,",,, ",' "","~ ,~" ~ I ~ ~, "~-- ._~",~ '''''''''''''illf'?l:'l!'?j\i" . - .' ~, ..,. 4. Argument Court Date: March 27,2002 Dated: ;:;.6/r I/A~,/ 2 ~ 20" '2. ~, ~, ~~ T I ", .~ !v~ ~.---Jf~~ Attorne~for Appellant Salzmann, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, P.C. 455 Phoenix Drive, Suite A Chambersburg, P A 17201 "l"""'!"~.~ _ ~~~ _.. . "~_"' 0 , , "~~. ." ,J_,~",^",~~ "" ," ~ ~~^~' '~ 0'"' """,,;,'~""' =~ ,~ Jllna~1IlliITl IIi : ~ ~lrfW-'-~,~;!rr';;h'~ .f. . , (") C) Ci C N " s::: .." "Ut"!;> r1 '\:::r 52fT! CO r :Ii r.....) 'i"~~ w:?; (.f'i . '.~,j " 1 "- 2(5 '"~~2 -c' ',- j, ~ '~~F; ZO ...... ~~ r- ;.st~n ;z; :::..:; S3 =< ()1 -<. B9! .~:!MPil'~~~,~, ,,~ ,~.,",,,-,,'1':~l,<:,,,,,.,,,,,,,,'f.l,1?1~''ii''~~''''''''''''''''"'!: LETTERMEN, INC., Appellant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP Appellee : NO. 01-5876 : NO. 01-5877 - Consolidated ~ APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION TO AMEND RECORD AND NOW, the Appellee, Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township, by and tlrrough its counsel, James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP, hereby files this Response to Appellant's Motion to Amend Record. 1. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the following statement was made in the Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Appellant's Land Use Appeals: "Upon the conditional approval of the Subdivision Plan and Land Development Plan, Lettermen made no effort whatsoever to object to any of the conditions either at the meeting when the plans were approved or thereafter." It is denied that this statement is a factual averment, which is not of record in this matter. To the contrary, this statement merely recites what the record reflects, to wit, there is no evidence in the record that the Appellant ever objected to any of the conditions of the approvals. 2. Denied. Pursuant to Section 1005-A of the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. ~ 1I005-A, in the event it is demonstrated that proper consideration of the land use appeal requires the presentation of additional evidence, the court is only permitted to receive additional evidence pmsuant to a hearing. There is no authority in the Municipalities Planning Code to amend the record tlrrough the use of affidavits. By way of further answer, the affidavits provide little, if any relevant information, since regardless of whether or not Appellant ever objected to ,,:;!~, "''':''-';~'--')~'',nJ''''~\~r",-'..",",o~"~".,"~".--^,s~,,,," ""--,,";;~" ,,,,~";I- -- . ,,-,.' ,~',' -""'^"'" --,<~_. , . ,~, _ c, ' .", the conditions, Appellant did not appeal the conditions of the approval of the subdivision plan and land development plan. 3. Denied. The responses to paragraphs 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. 4. Denied. The response to paragraph 2 is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. By way of further answer, Appellant's statement that the conditions were already on appeal on September 23, 1999 refers only to the appeal of the conditional use decision. Appellant did not appeal any of the conditions of the approval of the subdivision plan and land development plan. Dated: April 2, 2002 (717) 533-3280 2 ~,,"'; ""'~"",",~~ ",~"".",,,,,,"""'p" "~"-',~<",.~,,,,~,".,,,, ",,",,,,, '" f' ,.h~, ~ ,,> '~, ~; --; ..," .. '",< " ~'" --, ,'"',' . , ,~, '" ,~, "~, ,~.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, STEVEN A. STINE, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellee's Response to Appellant's Motion to Amend Record upon the following below-named individuals by depositing the same in the D,S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this 2nd day of April, 2002. SERVED UPON: G. Bryan Salzman, Esquire Salzman, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal 455 Phoenix Drive, Suite A Chambersburg, P A 17201 S Attorney ID. #44859 3 :";:, n, ',_",,' ,v ~"';;",;" "'W ,,," "',~ '"""~'~''''''',~,~", ,= ,~,'_,,"~_"', '_ ","~"~,, ,<", < ,",-' ,_ ,'~~".. .~"_,",.',~> "o'__'",~'-"J~__'~__'_"~'_ ''" ",0 ""1' ~""tt,jS-'- ''"'lrr 'U,: 'I >. .T.'~'"'-"Jtr"t( 1''''~:'.''tr(tc~'lilr~rnjlr'~,''<''f UH".Wft'it; -~,: r ," ~.ij: ' (:.:; ~ f.'~ :' (;1 ~ , ;"..1 ,-- . , ~.. :.,1 "..1 ~Es: .8// ~. H_ ,~.""", ,'0. ~"_ "",.'. ,. ~~,u~a<~*~~lllllllt"",^_~o""~~~~,,'':''-,f_'" "~~"""~', ~~'lI~,,!n~Ij.'t," T' O-~. ,,--,,"'C'''i_'''''_~,~ .,~ LETTERMEN, INC., Appellants v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee fEB 0 8 2002 JY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5876 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION LAW ...................... ..........., .......... .................... ............ LETTERMEN, INC., Appellants v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NO. 01-5877 CIVIL ,/ CIVIL ACTION LAW ORDER OF COURT .r\1 AND NOW, this ~ day of February, 2002, upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Consolidate the above matters filed by the parties hereto, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted and the matt.er is hereby eonsolidated By the Court, ~t:\~e.. ~o..l z.rn(L~J 1 t.~~ ()~-" -0:< l:/iN\fr JJ.NnOo c ., ., 'I' s",:(., t'i' !, V<JH;l\!()': ' . ~~ ';d '."."1"" ''-! 1-.1 . ('1 , ~, ~~ -. -~, ,--,." "=""r "'.--e '" ',,',.__ ~ ' , ".",,'" LETTERMEN, INC., Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee NO. 01-5876 CNIL CIVIL ACTION LAW ........................................................................... . LETTERMEN, INC., Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee NO. 01-5877 CNIL CIVIL ACTION LAW JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND NOW, this ~ day of February, 2002, Appellant Lettermen, Inc., by and through its counsel, G. Bryan Salzmann, Esquire of Salzmann, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, P.C. and Appellee, Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors, by and through its counsel, Steven A. Stine, Esquire of James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP hereby files this Joint Motion to Consolidate as follows: 1. On October 10, 2001, Appellant Lettermen, Inc. filed a land use appeal from the action taken by Appellee Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township on September 14, 2001 regarding a preliminary land development plan which attached certain conditions filed at Cumberland County Court Civil Action No. 2001-5876. 2. On the same date, Appellant Lettermen, Inc. filed a land use appeal from the action taken by Appellee Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township on September 14, 2001 regarding a final subdivision plan attaching certain conditions filed at Cumberland County Civil Action No. 2001-5877. 3. The purpose of the appeals was to challenge the lawfulness of certain conditions included with the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township on both the preliminary land development plan and final subdivision plan. '''''0,__~_............ ',C,""I", 1 r ~" _"'_~"'f' ~.~..~'".. ~ "'!I,""_Wi"~ . 1. The above appeals involve decisions made by Appellee Silver Spring Board of Supervisors affecting the same parcel of property, affecting the same proposed development, arise from the same nucleus of operative facts, and affect the same party in interest, Appellant Lettermen, Inc. 2. A determination by this Honorable Court in either appeal would affect the outcome in the other appeal. 3. For reasons as set forth above, the above captioned actions should be consolidated in the interests of judicial economy. 4. Appellant Lettennen, Inc. and Appellee Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors agree to the consolidation of these actions. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant this Motion to Consolidate and direct the Prothonotary to consolidate the actions. Respectfully Submitted Salzmann, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, P .C. / .__if By: i /w Ct,. Vv", s.-- .f~ G. Bryan Salzmann, Es . e ---' Attorney ill No. 61935 455 Phoenix Drive, Suite A Chambersburg, P A 17201 (717) 263-2 Coun or n, Inc. By: te nAS. Jam , mi , urkin & Connelly, ILP Attorney ill No. 134 Sipe Avenue Hummelstown, P A 17036 (717) 533.3280 Counsel for Appellee Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring ToWnship " ' , ,- ~. ", .... _';""""_ 0, ~~ ~~ ,.~~~ "'~~~-~ , "." . "'Ill ','^',,"", <, ,"~ ,',-' ,,,,,ffi'dI~~"~~., ,^ c<_ " _~_~ ,<.- ~ ~ . ,~ ,. ~~,~ ~ ,,~~""",-'" n<. "" ,Ii!I!!II~4,mli'!>"'~"""'-?,'Fi!""::';f"'Jf'''h:'''-'';'''''''A''';';' o c' a'~ ;~:e'~ -,.-' r:~=-' ( o;.:;:':C"J ::":.:~ r-; ;;>c:::: ::~j -< \.CJ :n en c=-: t,,) -,., .,'1 ; :':'~J I ()) c," r IIl1lllflr1ln1i" ,.--: ::::; ~,'-' r:::{ 81/ ""t,){';"T(C,'''",,,'~,{n~,fr~q];' 'l":+:~%:VIW~l' < . LETTERMEN, INC., Appellant : IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLV ANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee : NO. 01-5877 Civil Term : LAND USE APPEAL RETURN OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND NOW, comes the Township of Silver Spring by its dilly appointed Secretary, custodian of the records of said Township, and files the following documents as the record of the proceedings before the Board of Township Supervisors with regard to the above captioned matter pursuant to the Writ of Certiorari filed herewith: 1. Letter dated September 23, 1999 from William S. Cook to Lettermen, Inc. approving the Preliminary Subdivision Plan 99-lOP with conditions. 2. Letter dated September 14, 2001 from William S. Cook to Lettennen, Inc. reapproving for recording purposes the Preliminary Subdivision Plan 99-10P with all outstanding conditions. 3. Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Jack K. and Jeanne N. Sunday and Lettermen, Inc.. 4. Conditional Use Decision of the Board of Supervisors ofthe Township of Silver Spring on Conditional Use CD 98-6 for Lettermen, Inc. 5. Order and Opinion of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket No. 99- 2108, dated January 12, 2000. 6. Settlement Agreement dated May 11, 2000 between the Township of Silver Spring and Lettermen, Inc. 7. Order and Opinion of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket No. 99- 2108, dated December 29, 2000. 8. All documents, which are part of the record filed with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, Docket No. 99-2108, are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. '>'-=-t""" ,'~' ^~~ ~ " ,"- " , Respectfully submitted, kdJtlfi1 ~ Sue Ellen Adams Silver Spring Township Secretary Dated: January \& ,2002 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this date serving a true and correct copy of the Return of Writ of Certiorari (without copies of documents enumerated therein) upon the attorney for Appellant by sending the same by regular first class mail postage paid addressed as follows: G. Bryan Salzman, Esquire Salzman, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, P.C. 95 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, PA 17013 _~J~,f(/k~ Sue Ellen Adams Silver Spring Township Secretary Dated: January H~ ,2002 i",-; J~ -<>">, ",""",_,_"",~",_",~u,,_,.. _-""""?~,,~,,,~~_ ,',",", ,rl C'" """~o"~'" '"' ,_='H _~ """ ~' - , .~ ~ ,~ '. "~~~,,,' H,",,"'r-A.' , ,-','>" ".,' ~ \, --^,~,~', "~';"'-;"'~~",.A' ", 'f"" , ...._ Ill. . "''-'"'__',:"H'"'c;.''' ''l'r'ji'lififllil'lillll~nr j j Tl!~ -., .."",,~~,.,.,~ ", ,~~..-- ,,,,,,,,,~t'f' !'-;,i V\ t:1!lCi\ , -,oo\li!\!IjIl~!j"~I!"",~"J:;y ~ - " .- .. LETTERMEN, INC, Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, APPELLEE NO. 01 '5?77 CI 'v, / CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL Lettermen, Inc., Appellants, appeals from the decision of the Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, attaching certain conditions to the Reapproved Subdivision Plan 99-lOP. L The Appellant, Lettermen, Inc. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with offices at 716 North West Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013, and is the owner of a certain tract of land comprising 180 acres more or less, situated north of US. Rte. 81, and on the east and west of Rich Valley Road (S.R 1009) in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Appellee is the Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with offices at 6475 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055-2391. 3. The premises in question in this appeal is an approximately 180 acre tract ofland situated immediately to the north of US. Route 81 and to the east and west ofS. R 1009, Rich Valley Road, in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The premises in question was re-zoned by the Board of Supervisors from Agricultural (A) to Rural-Residential (R) by action of the Board of Supervisors on September 3, 1998. '~;;'i'''I-~~~ , '",__"_~"-;- c,,! ',_., , 1 p ~, e" ,,' " ,"""" ~. . - " " - 5. The re-zoning of said tract included, among other conditions not pertinent to this appeal, a condition that the subject tract must be used for a golf course facility or the tract would revert to an agriculture zoning status. 6. Section 202.4.1 of the Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance provides for a golf course as a Conditional Use in the "R" Zoning District 7. Pursuant to Section 704.5 of the said Zoning Ordinance, a hearing was held on January 27, 1999 on the application of Appellant for a Conditional Use for a golf course. 8. On March 10, 1999 the Board of Supervisors issued a decision on the Application for Conditional Use for said golf course, including certain findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, a copy of which is appended hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 9. In said decision (Exhibit "A") the Board approved the conditional use subject to "Specific Conditions" contained in said decision. Among the above referenced "Specific Conditions" were the following: (A) Condition 4, requiring Appellant to provide a "comprehensive" traffic study, and to "fund improvements needed to address the increase of traffic volume caused by the golf course use." (B) Condition 5, that if warranted by Penn Dot, Appellant was required to fund improvements to the roadway and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. (C) Condition 6, restricting clubhouse development to the existing interior dimensions of the barn structure nearest Rich Valley Road, and within the "footprint" thereof (D) Condition 7, limiting the use of the restaurant and dining facilities to banquet purposes in conjunction with principal golf related activities on the day of said activities. ] O. Appellant filed a Land Use Appeal with this Honorable Court docketed to No. 99-2 I 08 Civil Term ]999. ,'~","lW ,", , ,-~ I," ~-, , ..-..~ ~- ~~ - . , " . - 1 L On January 12, 2000 this Court issued an opinion on said Appeal, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B," which, inter. alia. (A) Recognized that the stipulation made between Applicant and Silver Spring Township during Argument on said Appeal eliminated condition 4. The Stipulation provided that "Applicant" (Appellant) has provided Township with the required comprehensive traffic analysis prepared by Grove Miller Engineering Inc. dated June 29, 1999 as supplemented by report dated August 20, 1999. (B) Annulled Condition 5, declaring that Township cannot require Appellant to make the required off-site improvements to the roadway traffic light on Rich Valley Road at U.S. Route 1 L 12. Upon Appellants Request for Re-Argument as to Conditions 6 and 7 this Honorable Court issued an Opinion on December 29,2000, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C", in which: (A) Condition 6 was stricken and Appellant was permitted to proceed in accordance with the "Clubhouse Schematics" plan as included in the Conditional Use plan submission. (B) Condition 7 was affirmed with the modification, as per the stipulation of Appellant and Township, that Appellant "is permitted to use the restaurant and banquet facility on any day as long as it corresponds with a principal golf-related activity" 13. The Order of this Honorable Court as to the annulment of Condition 5 was appealed by Township to the Commonwealth Court, docketed to No. 358 CD. 2000. 14. On May 11, 2000, Appellant and Township entered into a Settlement Agreement in which Appellant agreed to contribute Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00) to Township for the improvement of Rich Valley Road and/or the improvement and/or signalization of the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, and Township agreed to withdraw its appeaL A copy of said Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto as Exhibit "D." Township did then withdraw said appeaL ';"~~"^ ,',' ,",o.r.' ^ - , '" '" r ~ - " '"' . . - 15. Township, by decision dated September 22, 1999 approved Subdivision Plan 99-10P, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "E", with certain conditions including: (A) Condition 17 requiring a Comprehensive traffic analysis of Rich Valley Road and certain other roads. This requirement is identical to Conditional Use Condition 4 (Exhibit "A"), which condition was stricken by Stipulation of Appellant and Township and incorporated in the Order of this Honorable Court on January 12, 2000 (Exhibit "B"). (B) Condition 18 requiring Appellant provide for certain roadway improvements and traffic signalization at Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, which requirements were identical to Conditional Use Condition 5 (Exhibit "A"), the subject of the Agreement (Exhibit "D") and which were annulled by this Honorable Court in its January 12, 2000 Order (Exhibit ~'B"). (C) Condition 19 limiting the size and dimensions of the proposed clubhouse, which is identical to Condition Use Condition 6 (Exhibit "A") which was modified by this Court in its Order of December 29,2000 (Exhibit "c" hereof) (D) Condition 20 restricting clubhouse use, which restriction is identical to Conditional Use Condition 7 (Exhibit "A"), which was modified by this Court in its Order of December 29,2000, (Exhibit "c" hereof) 16. On September 22, 1999, at the time of issuance of the aforementioned Subdivision Plan, Appellant objected to the conditions which had been raised in the appeal of the Conditional Use Approval then pending before this Court. 17. On September 14,2001, the Township reapproved the subject Subdivision Plan No. 99- lOP, re-imposing all conditions including the same conditions listed in Paragraph 15 above, all of which had been voided or modified by the Order of Court, Stipulation and Agreement herein related. A copy of such Re-Approval is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "F". 18. The inclusion of conditions 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the re-approval Subdivision Plan No. 99-lOP are hereby appealed on the following bases: ,Br~'J>t:-'T ""', -- ,.,,"-',',-"'" ~ , "',"~, ~=, ~, , , . (A) They have been annulled, stricken or modified by the Orders of this Honorable Court of January 12, 2000 and December 29,2000, and/or Stipulation of Counsel referred to in said Orders and/or by the Settlement Agreement of May 11, 2000, (Exhibits "B", "C" and "D"), (B) Said conditions are arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, umeasonable and contrary to law. (C) Said conditions have never been negotiated for or approved by Appellant (D) Said conditions are in contempt of the aforementioned Court Orders and Agreement to terminate the Appeal to the Commonwealth Court. (E) The continued inclusion of said conditions evidences an intent to ignore the Orders of this Honorable Court and to deny the Appellant due process of law. (F) The continued inclusion of said conditions evidences the Township's manifest intent to wrongfully deny Appellant its right to approval of its land development plan. WHEREFORE, Appellants request that this Court reverse the action of the Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township in imposing Conditions 17, 18, 19, and 20 except as otherwise provided in the Orders of this Honorable Court on January 12, 2000 and December 29,2000, Respectfully submitted, Salzmann, DePaulis, Fishman & Morgenthal, p, Date: By: G. Brya I ann, Es uire Attorney ill No 61935 Counsel for Plaintiff 95 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6333 'C'<~Wr"'::'t , "~ " - " I - - = ^ ~ " ~' \ . . - '~. BEFORE THE BOARD OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS IN AND FOR THE TOWNSHIP OF SILVER SPRING, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA File No. CU 98-6 IN RE: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE BY LETTERMEN, INC. DECISION BY BOARD OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS AND NOW, this loth day of March, 1999, the Board of Township supervisors in and for the Township of Silver Spring, renders the following decision: AUTHORITY The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code ("MPC") authorizes a municipality to include conditional uses in its zoning ordinance: section 603 (c) (2), 53 P.S. ~ 10603 (c) (2). The Board of Township Supervisors ("Board") in and for the Township of Silver Spring ("Township") enacted a Zoning Ordinance on October 11, 1995 as Ordinance No. 95-10 ("Zoning Ordinance"). The Township has implemented the conditional use concept into its Zoning Ordinance via specific authorization in zoning district regulations, e.g. ~ 202.4 re Rural Residential Zone, and by establishment of standards and review requirements in ~ 704. The MPC prescribes substantive and procedural requirements for the municipality's governing body in ~ 913.2, 53 P.S. ~ 10913.2. ,;: EXHIBIT r B A , . \ > , - PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Lettermen, Inc. ("Applicant") filed an Application for Conditional Use ("Application") with Township on October 22, 1998 seeking conditional use approval to construct and operate a golf course in a part of the Rural Residential (R) zoning district. The Application was referred to the silver spring Township Planning commission for recommendations pursuant to S 705.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission held a meeting on the Application on December 10, 1998, and reported its recommendation (denial) by letter to Applicant dated December 11, 1998, a copy of which is part of the record of this proceeding. The Board fixed a public hearing on the Application for January 27, 1999. Public notice was given pursuant to S 704.5.2 and S 112 of the Zoning Ordinance. Proof of publication of such notice is filed as part of the record of this proceeding. A public hearing was held by the Board on January 27, 1999~ A transcript of the testimony and the various exhibits are parts of the record of this proceeding. References to the notes of testimony are referred to below as ("N.T.") plus page numbers and exhibits are referred to as "Exhibit" with designation as to proponent and number. The Board considered the evidence and rendered a tentative decision on February 24, 1999, with final formal decision to be made on March 10, 1999. This Decision is the final formal decision. -2- ,"'WBj\l~~~ .." <,~,,,", ,~" ~....,~ ,- .. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS AND CONCLUSION The Board finds as follows: 1. Lettermen, Inc., is the Applicant for conditional use of certain land in Silver spring Township ("Subject Property") for a golf course. 2. The Subject Property is a tract of land transected by Rich Valley Road (S.R. 1009) adjoining the northern side of Interstate Highway 1-81, containing approximately 194 acres and improved with a dwelling house and various farm related structures. 3. Applicant is the equitable owner of the Subject Property. 4. The Subject Property is within the Rural Residential (R) zoning district of the Zoning Ordinance as shown on Zoning Map pursuant to S 109 of the Ordinance and governed by the use regulations of S 202 of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. section 202.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for "golf courses" as conditional uses in the Rural Residential Zone. 6. The Applicant has filed the appropriate Application for conditional use and paid the required fee. 7. The Board is the proper body to hear and decide applications for conditional uses pursuant to S 704 of the zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Board concludes that it has jurisdiction of the Application. -3- .'"" ~~If .. t""~'. > " >", '._ ,,,0.,0, , '1'1' - ; ^ SUFFICIENCY OF APPLICATION The Board finds and concludes that Applicant has filed an appropriate Application and has supplied the supporting data as required by S 704.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. See also Applicant's Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 and testimony of Jeffrey S. Austin: N.T. 8 et sea. SUFFICIENCY OF PUBLIC HEARING The Board finds and concludes that proper public notice of the hearing to be held on January 27, 1999, was given pursuant to S704.5 of the zoning Ordinance and that the hearing was held in accordance with the same section. It is noted that no objections were made to either the notice or hearing procedures. FINDINGS OF FACTS The Board finds the following as relevant facts: 1. The Subject Property contains approximately 194 acres of generally unimproved farm land which adjoins a highly used Interstate Highway (1-81). (Applicant's Exhibit 4). 2. The improvements on the Subject Property consist of a dwelling house, two barn-type buildings and various sheds and other farm related outbuildings (Applicant's Exhibit 4). 3. The Application seeks generally to use the subject Property for (a) a 21-hole golf course and driving range to be constructed on both sides of Rich Valley Road (S.R. 1009) on approximately 174.2 acres; and (b) sixteen lots for single-family -4- -,~~;",,,,,^-- ","',,_,"'''r - ,," - \ - dwellings on approximately 19.5 acres on the east side of Rich Valley Road ("Residential Subdivision") (Applicant's Exhibit 4). 4. The Subject Property is bounded generally as follows: a. On the southeast by Interstate Highway (I-81) (3,941 feet); b. On the north and northeast by the Conodoguinet Creek (3,790 feet); c. On the northwest by 10 single family residences ("Existing Residences") (3,668 feet); and d. On the west and southwest by other farm land of Jack and Jeanne Sunday, the legal owners of the Subject Property (1,906 feet). 5. opponents of the conditional use application consisted primarily of (a) occupants/owners of the Existing Residences and of lands in the neighborhood of the Existing Residences and (b) occupants/owners of non-adjoining residential structures located on the opposite side (southeast) of Interstate Highway I-Bl. 6. Rich Valley Road (S.R. 1009) is a two-lane macadam road under the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") and runs generally between Carlisle Pike (S.R. 11) on the south and Wertzville Road (S.R. 944) on the north, and has intersections with various secondary roads serving the local community ("Feeder Roads"). Rich Valley Road is a collector-type road providing traffic access to and from said Carlisle pike and Wertzville Road. -5- "')"%r!-S"'~""~_ , ~". - , . 7. Carlisle Pike is a major 4-lane (with additional turning lanes) highway under PennDot jurisdiction which bisects Silver spring Township. The intersection of Rich Valley Road with Carlisle Pike is controlled presently only by a stop sign on Rich Valley Road. No electric traffic signals exist. 8. wertzville Road is a 2-lane highway under PennDOT jurisdiction which is a major transportation route for traffic to and from Perry County and areas of northern Cumberland County. 9. The Application proposes a golf driving range of approximately 400 yards in length (terminating at Interstate Highway 1-81) to be illuminated for night use. 10. The Application proposes to convert the barn structure, nea:t"est to Rich Valley Road as a "clubhouse restaurant". Other farm outbuildings are proposed to be removed or converted to storage and maintenance facilities incidental to the golf course usage. The dwelling house is proposed to be used for golf course office and residential purposes. 11. The Application proposes to draw all irrigation water from the Conodoguinet Creek. A prior indication of using on-site wells was abandoned by Applicant at the hearing. 12. The lighting proposed to illuminate the driving range is oriented to project away from (opposite) the Existing Residences. 13. The Existing Residences will adjoin golf tees and -6- '"",,:'iF,,, ,,' y "'~"-,',-.-- , ,~". ~,. ~, - \ , fairways. No clubhouse type activities will adjoin Existing Residences. FINDINGS RELATIVE TO CRITERIA OF ~ 704.2 OF ZONING ORDINANCE The Board finds as follows with respect to the General Criteria of S 704.2 of the zoning Ordinance: 1. The use of the Sublect Propertv as a qolf course is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoninq Ordinance. The Subject Property is located in the Rural Residential zoning district which recognizes golf course use as an allowable Use S 204.4.1 and S 428.1. "The primary purpose of this Zone [Rural Residential] is to promote a continuation of the rural character of the area...": S 202.1 of the zoning Ordinance. A golf course with large areas of grass planted land and natural landscaping is a use as near to the "rural character" as required by the Ordinance without being an active farm. The Subject Property is presently used for farming purposes. The proposed use for a golf course will preserve the openness of the "rural character" desired by !i 202.1 above. We believe that openness is the key element of "rural character". It is noted that the proposed Residential Subdivision is a permitted use in the Rural Residential zoning district: !i <02.2.2. While this proposed use is not at issue in this Decision, its permitted nature is recognized under the first criterion of !i 704.2. -7- ;'!;$<>1'IO.!.W!',~ , < ',',^, ,""~ ' , -" , ~ " ~- \ > 2. The use of the Subiect Propertv as a qolf course will not detract from the use and eniovrnent of adioininq or nearbv properties. The golf course adjoins the Conodoguinet Creek for a distance of 3,790 feet and Interstate Highway I-S1 for 3,941 feet (totalling approximately 7,731 feet). Such use cannot adversely affect the use of the Creek or I-S1. The golf course adjoins other lands of Jack and Jeanne Sunday (legal owners of the major portion of Subject Property) for a distance of 1,906 feet. The Sundays have no objection to the proposed use and, in fact, supported it by testimony at the hearing (N.T. 81-S4). Therefore, such use will not detract from the use and enjoyment of the Sundays' adjoining farmland. The golf course will not detract from the use and enjoyment of the Existing Residences. The location of golf course facilities in relation to the Existing Residences will perpetuate the open and cultivated character of the present agricultural use. Golf tees and greens will adjoin the Existing Residences which will provide green and landscaped facilities in the continuation of existing openness. Except for the presence of golfers and occasional maintenance activities, the occupants of Exi$ting Residences will not be aware of the adjoining use, and such use will not detract from their use and enjoyment of their properties. No adverse conditions (smoke, light, glare, dust, noi$e, etc.) will exist to cause such distractions. -S- """-"~'~fi""__' ", 1 " ~ " -~" W,'f, 'T"" ,-- 1'~ .,~, The concerns of persons located on the opposite side of Interstate Highway 1-81 are more perceived than actual when the long-time existence of 1-81 is considered with its noise, fumes, lights and constant activity. The proposed golf course use will not add to the existing major detraction of the use of 1-81. The issue of increased traffic on Rich Valley Road has also been studied at length. It is the Board's position that lawful development of land cannot be prohibited per se by possible inadequacy of existing public roads. Many roads, including Rich Valley Road were developed in another era when vehicular traffic was minimal and served only a local community. Vehicular traffic is an element in all types of planning and development. Its existence must be considered and accommodated. The Board believes that it has the authority to impose reasonable conditions relating to traffic issues which it has exercised below. The Board believes that other fully permitted uses in the Rural Residential zoning district could generate equal volume of traffic to that of the proposed golf course. The construction of single-family detached dwellings, parks, public uses, churches, etc. would produce as much traffic (if not more) as a golf course which is limited by climatic seasons, daylight and patron capacity. The additional traffic from golf course activity will not detract in any unreasonable manner from the present use and -9- >.,~."', "~""f~_ _ ., ~ " ~, '" ~, ~^.,.Ji enjoyment of adjoining and nearby properties. 3. The orooosed use as a qolf course will not effect a chanqe in the character of the subiect orooertv's neiqhborhood. As discussed above, the proposed use of approximately 175 acres of land for a golf course is as near as possible to the existing agricultural character of the Subject Property. It is as near to farm land as could be developed under the various uses allowed under the Rural Residential use regulations, whether permitted or allowed by special exceptions or conditionally (See S S 202.2, 202.3, 202.4 of Zoning Ordinance). At the present time, the neighborhood of the Subject Property consists of agricultural and single-family type housing. It is crossed by Interstate Highway 1-81. The Applicant proposes to expand the residential character by its 19.5 acre Residential Subdivision and to convert 175 acres of farmland to an open golf course. The character of the neighborhood will be preserved by the continuation of openness. Moreover, the activities of the golf course pale in comparison to the detraction of the Interstate Highway. 4. Adequate oublic facilities are available to serve the orooosed use as a qolf course. Very few and limited public facilities are needed to operate a golf course. with the very limited nature of human needs, equally limited public facilities are needed. Since the golf course does not increase population, there is -10- 'C','''''' , ".' ,"'- ,~ , ":~"", ,. - - '..... no concern for public school facilities and only minimal concern for police, fire or ambulance services. All of these elements are obviously sufficient. There are no public water or sanitary sewerage facilities readily available. However, based upon the absence of substantial needs therefor, it is believed that on-site wells and sewerage facilities will be adequate to secure the needs of the golf course uses. Adequacy of on-lot sewage disposal facilities is a proper issue in the subsequent land development planning process to assure public health protection. This conclusion specifically excepts the irrigation water needs which are limited by the Applicants' representation to use only water from the conodoguinet Creek. In light of the relatively small proposed use of the Subject Property, electrical, telephone and other public utility services appear to be adequate or otherwise available to Applicant by extension from nearby facilities. Traffic access is readily available by the existing system of public roads. 5. Floodolain develooment. The use of the existing floodplain of the Subject Property for golf course purposes is not inconsistent with the Floodplain zone and requirements as set forth in S231 of the Zoning Ordinance. The conditions set forth below sufficiently protect the public interest with respect to floodplain concerns. -11- ;'-"fili!i>t"" "I'." -" ", - 6. Specific criteria of section 428 and other sections of Zonina ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance prescribes specific criteria in S 428 for the development of golf courses. As set forth in the conditions below, the Applicant will be required to comply with the specific criteria of S 428 in the land development process. As applicable, all actual development and construction of the proposed golf course must comply with all other relevant regulations of the zoning Ordinance. 7. The proposed use as a aolf course will not substantiallv impair the intearitv of the Township's Comprehensive Plan. The Silver Spring Township comprehensive Plan, adopted October 11, 1995, identifies by way of the Natural Features Map areas within the Township possessing environmental features of concern. Those features depicted on the map within the area of the Subject Property proposed for the golf course development include floodplain, wetlands, and hydric component soils. The proposed use as a golf course (open land with little additional impervious area) is in concert with those natural features. In addition the Future Land Use map also identifies a substantial portion of the Subject Property as Conservation (over 50%). The proposed use of the property is consistent with the preservation of those sensitive natural features noted above. -1.2- '~",l;. ~ "'__ ^',~, ,_ , ,>< ' ~" ~" , CONCLUSION AND FINAL DECISION Based upon the record of these proceedings and the foregoing findings and conclusion, The Board approves the conditional use of the Subject Property as a golf course in accordance with (a) the Application and the exhibits and representation produced by Applicant at the hearing except as provided to the contrary or in addition thereto in the "Specific Conditions" below, and (b) in accordance with Applicant's compliance with all applicable ordinances and regulations of the Township, including, but not limited to, the specific criteria of S 428 and the applicable limitations and requirements of ~~ 202 and 231 of the Zoning Ordinance and the following Specific Conditions imposed pursuant to S 704.3 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. That all water to be used for irrigating the golf course must be drawn directly from the Conodoguinet Creek in accordance with the rules and regulations of any agency having jurisdiction over said Creek and its water, and that no water shall be used from wells on the Subject Property for irrigation. 2. That the lights for illuminating the proposed driving range must comply in all respects with the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the lights for illuminating the proposed driving range must be extinguished at 9:30 o'clock P.M., prevailing time. -13- "H1'iW4t',J^ ''''-''' -'<"". ',' '-'--">""W!, ~ 4. That the Applicant shall provide a comprehensive traffic analysis of the intersections of (a) Rich Valley Road and Wertzville Road, (b) Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, and (c) Rich Valley Road and all Feeder streets located between (a) and (b), in order to identify and fund road improvements needed to address the increase of traffic volume caused by the golf course use. 5. That if warranted by PennDOT, Applicant shall provide the funds necessary to improve the roadway and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. Applicant's funding requirements shall be reduced by the amount, if any, of prior developer-contributions made specifically for such purpose at said intersection. 6. That except for an outside entrance canopy, the proposed adaptation of the barn structure nearest Rich Valley Road denoted for clubhouse purposes must be limited and confined to the existing interior dimensions (width, length, height, area and volume) of said structure and ~- within the "footprint" thereof. 7. That restaurant and dining facilities of the Clubhouse shall not be used for banquet purposes except in conjunction with principal golf-related activities on the day of said activities. -14- " . ,. " ~ .~r~~ - ,=,\H "" , .' 8. That the portion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road shall be substantially completed before commencing the construction of any structures in the Residential Subdivision. 9. That the proposed office use of the existing dwelling house on the Subject Property shall be limited to the immediate business of operating the golf course and shall not be used by or for any other enterprise. 10. That any use of the floodplain area of the Subject Property shall be in strict compliance with all regulations of this Township, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of the United States or any of their agencies having jurisdiction, applicable to such floodplain use and preservation. 11. That the Applicant's commitment to the reverter condition made in the rezoning proceedings is hereby extended and made a continuing condition of this decision. The foregoing requirements and conditions must be reflected in all future land subdivision and land development plans which relate in any way to the golf course. The time limitations contained in S 704.6.1-3 shall apply to this approval. This decision shall be binding and enforceable upon and against Applicant and/or its successors and/or assigns. -15- "''"~~ , ~'-" . 1 " " r .. __0 'V' ,~,_ ~" ~W~ The Zoning Officer shall have special authority to enforce the provisions of this decision. A true copy of this Decision shall be delivered to the Applicant personally or mailed by certified mail (return receipt requested) no later than March 11, 1999. APPROVED this loth day of March, 1999 by the Board of Township supervisors at a public meeting on a roll-call vote as follows: Chairman Pecht - ~~b Supervisor LeBlanc fJ Supervisor Lewis - supervisor Eakin - ' supervisor Dunn - BOARD TOWNSHIP By: ATTEST: _~~ MGJ\"(\j) Township Secretary -16- ;;'~;:~"" .' ~ "~,'~' ',e ,,' ,~,o/, - .~ " ~,.,~,..", "'-"'If!.:.__ LETTERMEN, INC. Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.99-210B Civil Term /" Land Use Appeal v. TOWNSHIP OF SILVER SPRING Appellee v. LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL, Intervenor LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL, Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP Appellee No. 99-2119 Civil Term Land Use Appeal v. LETTERMEN, INC. Intervenor IN RE: Land Use Appeal From Silver SprinQ Township Board of Supervisors' Grant of Conditional Use Approval Before HOFFER. P.J. and OLER. J. ORDER ~ AND NOW, this 1L. day of January, 2000, it is hereby ordered and decreed that, the appeal of Lester S. Miller, et aI., from the Decision of the Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors dated March 10, 1999, is EXHIBIT . b"'<' " ',. I~ , . "---'" P'"~I "~ dismissed. The appeal of Lettermen, Inc. is upheld to the limited effect of annulling Condition 5 of the Board's Decision; but in all other respects, Lettermen, Inc.'s appeal is dismissed. By the Court, Steven J. Fishman, Esquire 95 Alexander Spring Road, Ste. 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 For Lettermen, Inc. C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire 114 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 For Lester S. Miller, Jr., et al. Richard C. Snelbaker. Esquire 44 West Main Street, PO Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors .,.,~ "c" r~" ~" , ,~ ' ,,~ v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LETTERMEN, INC. Appellants TOWNSHIP OF SILVER SPRING Appellee No.99-210B Civil Term Land Use Appeal v. LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL, Intervenor LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL, Appellants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP Appellee No. 99-2119 Civil Term Land Use Appeal v. LETTERMEN, INC. Intervenor Land Use Appeal From Silver Sprina Township Board of Supervisors' Grant of Conditional Use Approval HOFFER, P.J.: Statement of Facts and Procedural Historv Lettermen, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation with offices at 153 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, is the equitable owner of the subject property and developer of a proposed golf course. Lettermen, Inc. sought and obtained approval from the Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors to construct a -"'t,~~., '",~'" ""'" ''-"~ "" , "~ golf course at the subject property. The subject property is 194 acres of generally unimproved farmland. The property is transected by Rich Valley Road and bounded by Interstate 81, Conodoguinet Creek, 10 single-family residences and the farmland of Jack K. and Jeanne N. Sunday. Decision of the Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors (hereinafter "Decision") at 3. Section 202 of the Zoning Ordinance governs the use of property in a Rural Residential (R) zoning district, within which the subject property is located. Decision at 3. On September 23, 1998, the Board approved Lettermen's rezoning request that the subject property be rezoned from Agricultural (A) to Rural Residential (R). On October 22, 1998, Lettermen, Inc. applied for conditional use approval. On December 10, 1998, the Township Planning Commission recommended to the Board that the Board deny the conditional use. In their Decision on March 10, 1999, the Board granted Lettermen, Inc. a Conditional use to construct a golf course subject to 11 "Specific Conditions." In Lettermen, Inc. v. Township of Silver Spring, Lettermen, Inc. appealed conditions imposed by the Board in the Board's conditional use approval. Lester S. Miller, Jr. and other neighbors to the subject property appealed the conditional use approval in Lester S. Miller, Jr., et al v. Township of Silver Spring. The cases have been consolidated here. The subject property has improvements consisting of a dwelling house, two barn-type buildings and various sheds and other farm related outbuildings. The application for conditional use approval proposes to use the property for a 2 . '\"U'~!f~ ~,~ . ~ 21-hole golf course and driving range to be constructed on both sides of Rich Valley Road (SR. 1009) on approximately 174.2 acres; and sixteen lots for single-family dwellings on approximately 19.5 acres on the east side of Rich Valley Road ("Residential Subdivision"). The application proposes: - to build a golf driving range of 400 yards, terminating at 1-81, to be illuminated for night use. - to illuminate the driving range with lighting that will project away from (opposite) the existing residences. - to convert an existing barn as a "clubhouse restaurant." Applicant proposes the removal or conversion of other farm outbuildings to storage and maintenance facilities for usage incidental to the golf course. Applicant proposes to use the house for a golf course office and residence. - to draw all irrigation water from the Conodoguinet. The Applicant abandoned the possibility of on-site wells at the hearing. " , Rich Valley Road (S.R. 1009) is a two-lane macadam "collector-type" road under PennDOT jurisdiction and runs generally between Carlisle Pike (S.R. 11) on the south and Wertzville Road (SR. 944) on the north, and has intersections with feeder roads. Carlisle Pike is a major 4-lane highway under PennDOT jurisdiction bisecting Silver Spring Township. The intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, which is more than a mile from the subject property, 3 -'-,,"~~>, ~" ~, ~, , ~ - ~~ 'I '''''- presently has only a stop sign and no electric traffic signal. Wertzville Road, approximately one mile from the subject property, is a 2-lane highway and major transportation route under PennDOT jurisdiction. General Approval Issues The zoning change from Agricultural (A) to Rural Residential (R) on September 23, 1998 will not be reviewed. Section 909.1 (a) of the Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. ~10909.1(a), provides the zoning hearing board with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render adjudication in matters of substantive challenges to the validity of any land use ordinance or validity challenges raising procedural questions. Procedural challenges must be raised by an appeal taken within 30 days of the effective date. See Sharp v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Radnor, 157 Pa.Cmwlth. 50,628 A.2d 1223, appeal denied, 536 Pa. 629, 637 A.2d 290 (1993). The time limitation on appeals to the zoning change here was 30 days. No such appeal was or has been made concerning the zoning of the subject property in this case. However, the parties appeal the Board's decision based on the following contentions. Contentions of the Parties Lester S. Miller, Jr., et ai, appeals the grant of conditional use approval for a golf course use. Lester S. Miller, Jr., et ai, contends: A. A golf course use is inconsistent with the purpose of the Rural Residential zoning district, because a golf course's characteristics are 4 '_J';~"~~ ,_ ~, r n, ,', _ ~~"I _ l~' ^ ",~~~ . not rural, thus detracting from the use and peaceful enjoyment of property for the neighbors. B. The banquet facilities in the Letterman conditional use application are unreasonably oversized and will be a commercial use inconsistent with the Rural Residential zone. C. The lighted driving range will cause light pollution in the neighborhood. D. The golf course will generate an unnecessarily large volume of traffic in the neighborhood, contrary to the character of the zone; and public facilities, such as Rich Valley Road, are not adequate to serve a golf course. E. The proposed plans will alter watercourses, detaining water from fragile wetlands, contrary to Section 231 of the Zoning Ordinance. F. The proposed withdrawal of water from the Conodoguinet may result in excessive water withdrawal and could threaten neighbor's access to water, particularly during drought. Lester S. Miller Jr., et ai, requests that this Court reverse the Decision of the Board and deny Lettermen, Inc.'s conditional use. Lettermen, Inc. appeals conditions the Board attached in granting Lettermen, Inc.'s conditional use approval for a proposed golf course. Lettermen, Inc. contends that the following conditions were arbitrary, discriminatory, not supported by evidence and contrary to law: 5 ~;~,-- - ,,,. , <, "" ,'" <" , ,~"'" 'I ,~~ >~~'" ".~ A. Condition 3 restricts the hours of operation of driving range lights beyond the standards of the Township Ordinances. B. Condition 4 requires Lettermen, Inc. to provide a traffic study and fund improvements to address the increase in traffic resulting from the golf course. C. Condition 5 requires Lettermen, Inc. to fund roadway improvements and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. D. Condition 6 restricts the golf course clubhouse to the existing interior dimensions of the existing barn, while section 428.5 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a clubhouse to include a restaurant, snack bar, lounge, banquet facilities, locker and rest rooms, pro shop, administrative offices and fitness and health equipment. E. Condition 7 restricts the reasonable use of the proposed premises. F. Condition 8 requires substantial completion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road prior to commencing construction of any "structures" in the Residential Subdivision. Enorcement of this condition would preclude construction of storm sewer pipes, culverts, roads, signs, and the like, until construction is substantially completed. 6 . "-"WWfl!'_l, ,,'~", ,,,,",'e ,~ - "~.-"'=-..., DISCUSSION We now must determine whether the Board abused its discretion, committed an error of law or made findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence. POA Co. v. Findlay Township Zoning Hearing Board, 551 Pa. 689, 698, 713 A.2d 70, 75 (1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. POA Co., 551 Pac at 698,713 A.2d at 75. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that was reached. Id. 551 Pa. at 698,713 A.2d at 75. A trial court, having determined that the Board committed neither an abuse of discretion nor error of law, is bound to affirm the decision of the Board as long as the Board's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Spargo v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Municipality of Bethel Park, 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 193,204,563 A.2d 213, 217 (1989) reh'g denied. A trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board, absent a manifest abuse of discretion. B & B Shoe v. Manheim Borough, 28 Pa.Cmwlth. 275 (1977). The law regarding conditional use permits states that a conditional use permit must be granted if the applicant meets the specific requirements in the ordinance, unless the use will be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Wheaton v. Zoning Hearing Board of Municipality of Penn Hills, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 201, 204-205, 567 A.2d 779, 781 (1989). The burden then shifts to 7 "-~;,'li~~,o^,:."",'A",_,r,"', I r ~~ ~, - the protestants to present evidence that the proposed use has a detrimental effect on health, safety and welfare. Id. A Board of Supervisors may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards, in addition to those expressed in the zoning ordinance, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the MPC in the zoning ordinance. MPC S603(c)(2); Levin V. Board of Supervisors of Benner Township, Centre County, 669 A.2d 1063, 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Additionally, a township board of supervisors may properly require conditional use applicants to bear the cost of improvements which address concerns arising from the applicant's proposed use, if the requirement is intended to promote conditions favorable to the township's general health, safety and welfare. Pitcher v. Heidelberg Township Board of Supervisors, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 505, 508, 637 A.2d 715, 716 (1994). See also, Tobin v. Radnor Township Board of Commissioners, 142 Pa.Cmwlth. 567, 584-85, 597 A.2d 1258, 1266-1267(1991). Any conditions that the Supervisors wish to impose upon the proposed conditional use must be upheld if the conditions are reasonably related to the health, safety or welfare of the public. Clinton County Solid Waste Authority v. Wayne Township, 164 Pa.Cmwlth. 632, 646-647, 643 A.2d 1162, 1169 (1994) (Requiring inspection of incoming waste and requiring construction of cyclone fence to protect site were held to be reasonable conditions imposed in a landfill conditional use). See also Mosside Associates, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Municipality of 8 ""ii,:;;J J: ~ ~ J '1"'_, ,~, ~,_'... 1'- . ...~ ~ " ~. ,~ ~IIIII- Monroeville et aI., 70 Pa.Cmwlth. 555, 557, 454 A.2d 199, 201 (1982) (Conditional use appropriately granted with 13 attached conditions). We now look to whether the Board has abused its discretion in rendering its Decision regarding the following issues: 1. Whether a golf course use in a rural residential zone violates the Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance. Lester S. Miller, Jr., et ai, contends that a golf course use is inconsistent with the purpose of a Rural Residential zoning district. The ordinance governing the present case is the 1995 Zoning Ordinance for Silver Spring Township 9428, which permits golf courses as a conditional use in a Rural Residential zone and prescribes specific criteria for golf courses. Section 202.1, which defines the purpose of a Rural Residential zone, allows farmland to be developed while preserving the "rural character" of an area. As the 1995 Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance 9202.4.1 specifically provides for the conditional use of a golf course in the Rural Residential Zone, it is clear th12t the drafters of the Zoning Ordinance believed golf courses would not detract from the "rural character" of an area. In addition, the record shows that the golf course use will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Thus, we affirm the Board's decision permitting the proposed golf course at the subject property. 2. Whether the Susquehanna River Basin Commission's (SRBC) approval of irrigation water withdrawal from the Conodoguinet River will sufficiently guard the health, safety and welfare of the township residents and neighbors of the subject property. 9 ,\~, ~, ''''- ", " -" c I . ," ~, -,r'~ Lester S. Miller, et ai, contends that Lettermen's withdrawal of water from the Conodoguinet will endanger the health, safety and welfare of nearby residents due to the lowering of the water level in the creek. Pending final approval from the SRBC, the issue here of withdrawing water from the Conodoguinet River is totally within SRBC jurisdiction. We do not address issues here that the Board of Supervisors would be unable to address. Citizens have the option of carrying their concerns to the SRBC, should any concerns arise. 3. Whether the golf course plans will alter watercourses, detaining water from fragile wetlands, contrary to Section 231 of the Zoning Ordinance. Lester S. Miller, Jr., et al contends that the proposed plans will alter watercourses, detaining water from fragile wetlands, contrary to Section 231 of the Zoning Ordinance. Lettermen, Inc.'s Exhibit 11, which contains the plans for the proposed golf course, clearly shows that the subject property partially lies within a flood plain. Section 231.7 allows golf courses in a floodplain zone: "Permitted Uses - The following uses and no others are permitted in the Floodplain Zone: 9. Recreational use, ... such as parks, camps, picnic areas, golf courses, fishing areas, ..." Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance of 1995. The record shows that the golf course use will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. Lettermen's plans for the proposed golf course show that the wetlands area will not be eliminated as a result of the proposed plans. LO ,,~ " ,-' <'-' ',' ',~ "~ ." ~~"""""" ,. Lettermen, Inc.'s Exhibit 11, Section 4. Thus, we affirm the Board's decision permitting the proposed golf course in a floodplain zone. 4. Whether public facilities are adequate to serve the golf course. Lester S. Miller, Jr., et al contends that the public facilities, such as Rich Valley Road, are not adequate to serve a golf course. Vehicular traffic must be considered and accommodated by the Board's decision, but lawful development of land cannot be prohibited per se by possibly inadequate existing public roads. The construction of other fully permitted uses in the R zone would produce as much or more traffic than a golf course. A golf course, in contrast, will result in increased traffic only during the seasons when people would want to golf. The existing on-site wells and sewerage facilities, electrical, telephone and other public utility services will be adequate to meet the golf course use needs. Due to the nature of a golf course, we agree with the Board that the course will require few other public facilities. We affirm the Board's decision that Lettermen, Inc. need not construct additional public facilities. 4. Whether Condition 5, requiring that Lettermen, Inc. fund traffic signals and road improvements to an area more than a mile away from the subject property if warranted by Penn DOT, is a permissible condition.1 I Silver Spring Township made a stipulation regarding whether Lettermen, Inc. met Condition 4 of the Decision, that Lettermen, Inc. provide a comprehensive traffic analysis. "Applicant has provided Township with the required comprehensive traffic analysis as prepared by Grove Miller Engineering, Inc. Clated June 29,1999 as supplemented by report dated August 20,1999." Letter from Township's Counsel, Richard C. Snelbaker, September 23, 1999. Thus, we do not address Condition 4 of the Decision here. 11 Hf<~;;'~", , ~ ~,--". -" , ," ,~~~~.-< Lettermen, Inc. contends that Condition 5 is an error of law. Condition 5 provides, That if warranted by PennDOT, Applicant shall provide the funds necessary to improve the roadway and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. Applicant's funding requirements shall be reduced by the amount, if any, of prior developer-contributions made specifically for such purpose at said intersection. Decision at 14. The law in Pennsylvania does not allow a Board to require off-site improvements. Municipality of Monroeville v. Prin, 680 A.2d 9, 13-14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). In Municipality of Monroeville v. Prin, the court held that an attempt to impose conditions of off-site improvements violated 53 P.S. ~10503(A)(b), stating that such an imposition constituted an error of law. Id. The Prin court found the requirement of improvements to traffic intersections at least one mile from the subject property to be an error of law. Id. The Prin court stated that ~ 503-A(b) of the MPC (53 P.S. ~10503(A)(b)), prohibited off-site conditions. However, the Prin court permitted conditions that required on-site improvements. Id. A Board may appropriately require on-site improvements, so long as the improvement will improve the health, safety or welfare of citizens. Pitcher v. Heidelberg Township Board of Supervisors, 161 Pa.Cmwlth. 505, 508, 637 A.2d 715, 716, 717 (1994). The court in Pitcher v. Heidelberg Township Board of Supervisors held that an applicant for a subdivision approval was properly required to pay to widen an abutting road. Id. The improvement would 12 "'f"W"!i1Wl1'o,,""",", __v,"'C , "I .~ - --r"'_ ,,, \ "--,~ - i" correct an existing hazardous condition immediately adjacent to the subject property in that case (emphasis added). (d. The Board in Pitcher anticipated that the applicant's subdivision plan would increase traffic on the road in question. Id. at 509,637 A.2d at 718. See also, Tobin v. Radnor Township Board of Commissioners, 142 Pa.Cmwlth. 567, 584-85, 597 A.2d 1258, (1991) (holding that a municipality may condition use approval on improvements to a road). Here, Lettermen, Inc. has provided a comprehensive traffic study demonstrating that traffic on the road will increase as a result of the proposed use. 2 The Board of Supervisors conditioned approval of the golf course on the Lettermen's funding of traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, if warranted by PennDOT. A situation whereby PennDOT would warrant such improvements may not come about for many years. However, if PennDOT requires such improvements, the Board then would seek provision of funds from whoever owns the golf course. At present we do not know whether Penn DOT warrants or will warrant such improvements. The Board is attempting to preface approval on a condition that may never come into effect, or may come into effect 20 or 30 years from now. Notwithstanding an indefinite time period, the Pennsylvania Code does not provide for offsite improvements, regardless of when such improvements would be required. 53 P.S. 10503(A)(b); Municipality of Monroeville v. Prin, 680 A.2d 9, 13-14 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). Offsite 13 I ''-'~.1- . ~, ' ' I" ~ ~,~ . 'C''f''!,fJR improvements to the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike may eventually be warranted by PennDOT and possibly could improve health, safety and welfare in the township by controlling the increased traffic a golf course would create. Nonetheless, such improvements would clearly be far removed from the subject property and a condition requiring such improvements is per se impermissible and an error of law. We hereby annul Condition 5 of the Board's grant of conditional approval. 5. Whether the glare reduction on the driving range lights as conditionally approved in the plans is an appropriate condition; and whether it will sufficiently protect the health, safety and welfare interests of the residents. Lester S. Miller, Jr., et al contends that the golf course lights will cause light pollution, create a commercial appearance and detract from the neighbor's use and enjoyment of their property. Lettermen, Inc. contends that Condition 3, restricting the hours of operation of the driving range lights, is beyond the standards of the Township Ordinances. Section 428.5(2)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance allows a "driving range," provided that the applicant shall furnish expert evidence that all Ii!!)hting has been arranged to prevent glare on adjoining properties and streets. Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance, 1995. The township has required glare shields. Lettermen, Inc. has furnished expert evidence explaining the function of glare shields. Lettermen, Inc.'s Exhibit 11, Section 5. The shields are intended to prevent direct glare, but ambient light would still be a factor. For this reason, the Board has set a 9:30 p.m. "lights off' 2 Lettennen, Inc:s Exhibit 11, Section 5. l-l ~ " - ,~ .~= ] condition in Condition 3 of the Decision. This requirement is reasonably required to protect the health, safety and welfare of nearby residents. The Board has met its duty to the neighbors and the Zoning Ordinance with this requirement. The driving range is a permitted accessory use and the 9:30 p.m. "lights off' provision is reasonable. Thus, we are bound to affirm the Board's decision permitting the proposed driving range. 6. Whether it is reasonable and not an abuse of discretion for the Township Board of Supervisors to require in Condition 8 that the portion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road be substantially completed before construction on any "structures" in the Residential Subdivision begins. Lettermen, Inc. contends that requiring substantial completion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road prior to commencing construction of any "structures" in the Residential Subdivision is an arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational condition. Condition Eight provides: That the portion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road shall be substantially completed before commencing the construction of any structures in the Residential Subdivision. Decision at 15. Lettermen, Inc. does not yet have the Board's approval to construct a "Rural Cluster" housing development within the golf course. Section 451 of the Zoning Ordinance permits Rural Clusters in a Rural Residential zone subject to conditional use approval. Lettermen, Inc. must yet obtain such approval. While this proposed use is not at issue in this Decision, its permitted nature is recognized under the first criterion of ~704.2. Decision at 7. Lettermen, Inc. 15 I,: i,'<"",[, -'7,0_ " .-'{Ff^' :"~ I ,~ - ~'" appealed Condition 8 in the Decision on the basis that construction on the golf course later would need to be re-done to install necessary utility pipes for the proposed Residential Subdivision. The Board addressed this complaint in the Brief of Silver Spring: Lettermen, Inc. quibbles with the Board of Supervisors's language in regulating the order of development. Specifically, it attempts to split hairs over the word 'structures'. As explained informally to Lettermen, 'structures' means buildings, houses, homes. At no time has any indication that the term means 'storm sewer pipes, culverts, roads, signs, etc. Lettermen, Inc. knows that the Township insisted that the golf course be substantially completed before the housing development began. It is sheer common sense that houses would sell independent of the golf course, but that the houses were incidental to the primary use of a golf course. . . . If the golf course development requires "storm sewer pipes, culverts, roads, signs, etc.," they must be installed of sheer necessity. . . . The Court is assured that "structures" means "houses" in the context of Condition 8. Brief of Township of Silver Spring at 13-14. We find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in requiring substantial completion of the golf course prior to the commencement of housing construction. Lettermen, Inc. must yet obtain approval for a residential subdivision. As provided for in the Brief of Township of Silver Spring, the Board's allowance for the inclusion of such items as "storm sewer pipes, culverts, roads, signs, etc.," in the course of the golf course construction eliminates the possibility of an unreasonable reading of the Board's decision. Thus, we are bound to affirm the Board's decision requiring that the golf course be substantially completed prior to the commencement of housing construction. 16 "''''='''it, I'll,~ ~, _.^ ~ _ _ ",> ;'",', _ ., ".." .... ~. , . "S'il'T Jf, 7. Whether the golf course banquet facilities are unreasonably oversized or unreasonably restricted to the footprint of the existing facilities, in light of the permitted inclusion of a restaurant, snack bar, lounge, banquet facilities, locker rooms, rest rooms, pro shop, offices and fitness equipment. Lester S. Miller, et ai, contends that the proposed clubhouse features an unreasonably oversized banquet facility, arising from the concern that the facility will allow a large restaurant use. Lettermen, Inc. contends that Conditions 6 and 7 unreasonably limit the proposed facility to the footprint of the existing buildings on the subject property and unreasonably limit the use ofthe facility. Conditions 6 and 7 provide: 6. That except for an outside entrance canopy, the proposed adaptation of the barn structure nearest Rich Valley Road denoted for clubhouse purposes must be limited and confined to the existing interior dimensions (width, length, height, area and volume) of said structure and within the 'footprint' therof. 7. That restaurant and dining facilities of the clubhouse shall not be used for banquet purposes except in conjunction with principal golf- related activities on the day of said activities. Decision at 14. According to the Clubhouse Schematics, the combined gross square footage of the ground floor and the first floor of the facility WOUld be 8,;JbU reet. However, this area is contained entirely within the footprint of the existing buildings. upon which Silver Spring conditioned approval. The plans are part of the record, and from our own examination of the plans, we estimate the building to be approximately 120 feet by 100 feet. The facility contains 3 partitioned rooms with rough measurements of 25 feet by 30 feet, 25 by 40 feet, and 12 feet 17 '."'1' . ~ , by 25 feet. If Lettermen Inc. constructed the course and the facilities as , proposed and conditionally approved, the seating in the banquet facility would far exceed the number of possible players at the course. If all four players on each of the holes were to eat simultaneously in the banquet facility, only 84 seats would be required (4 x 21 = 84). Clearly, this is not a large-scale restaurant operation. It is irrelevant that there would be more seats in the banquet facility than there could be players on the golf course. According to the Clubhouse Schematics, the facility will be constructed entirely within the footprint of the existing buildings. The Board conditioned approval on such a plan. The existing buildings are a barn and farmhouse; the area therein is not an unreasonably large accommodation for the golf course restaurant, snack bar, lounge, banquet facilities, locker rooms, rest rooms, pro shop, offices and fitness equipment. Also, the area within the footprint of the existing buildings is not so small as to be unreasonably restrictive of the proposed facility. The proposed facility, as evidenced by the Clubhouse Schematics in the record, allows all of the above-mentioned uses. The Board appropriately limits the facility to the footprint of the existing buildings to prevent the possibility of a large-scale restaurant use. Therefore, we conclude that the Board's condition limiting the clubhouse and banquet facility to the footprint of the existing buildings to be a reasonable condition, and we affirm. 18 "~,:H ,'" ",.,,<, ',_' " _~, . " - ,. LETTERMEN, INC., Appellants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , ," p' v. : NO. 99-2108 Civil Term 1999 : Land Use Appeal :,: ~, ^,. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee iI v. "1 LESTER S. MILLER, ET AL., Intervenor IN RE: Land Use Appeal To Conditional Use Requirements 6 and 7 Attached To The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors Conditional Use Approval Decision For The Rich Valley Golf Course ORDER AND NOW, thi~Yof b. , 2000, after consideration of Re- . r ,. Argument and all briefs submitted it is hereby ordered and decreed that Condition 6 should be stricken and Appellant is permitted to proceed in : accordance with the "Clubhouse Schematics." Condition 7 is affirmed with the noted minor modification, as contained in the opinion. B By the Court, 'I' , ~ , 1 I c . . U EXHIBIT f " LETTERMEN, INC., Appellants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, OF SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, Appellee : NO. 99-2108 Civil Term 1999 : Land Use Appeal v. ;":::STER S. MillER, ET Al., Intervenor IN RE: Land Use Appeal To Conditional Use Requirements 6 and 7 Attached To The Silver Sprinq Township Board of Supervisors Conditional Use Approval Decision For The Rich Vallev Golf Course OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: Statement of Facts and Procedural History lettermen, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with offices at 153 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, is the equitable owner of the subject property and developer of a proposed golf course. lettermen, Inc. sought and obtained approval from the Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors (hereinafter "Board") to construct a golf course at the subject property. The subject property is 194 acres of generally unimproved farmland. The property is transected by Rich Valley Road and bounded by Interstate 81, the Conodoguinet Creek, 10 single-family residences, and the farmland of Jack K. Sunday and Jeanne N. Sunday. On September 23, 1998, the Board approved Lettermen, Inc.'s rezoning request that the subject property be rezoned from Agricultural (A) to Rural " Residential (R). On October 22, 1998, Lettermen, Inc. applied for conditional use approval. On December 10, 1998, the Township Planning Commission recommended to the Board that the Board deny the conditional use. On March 10, 1999, the Board granted Lettermen, Inc. a conditional use to construct a golf course subject to eleven (11) "specific conditions" in the Silver Spring Township Conditional Use Decision (hereinafter "Decision"). Lettermen, Inc. filed an appeal to this Court with regard to six (6) of the eleven (11) conditions set forth in the Decision. This Court issued an opinion addressing all eleven (11) conditions and an order on January 12, 2000. In that Opinion and Order, we annulled Condition 5 and in all other respects dismissed Lettermen Inc.'s appeal. The appeal of Lester S. Miller, et al. was also dismissed in the order. Upon motion by Appellant, Lettermen, Inc., this Court has permitted Re- Argument as to Conditions 6 and 7 as imposed by the Decision. These Conditions provide: 6. "That except for an outside entrance canopy, the proposed adaptation of the barn structure nearest Rich Valley Road denoted for clubhouse purposes must be limited and confined to the existing interior dimensions (width, length, height, area and volume) of said structure and within the "footprint" thereof." 7. "That restaurant and dining facilities of the clubhouse shall not be used for banquet purposes except in conjunction with principal golf- related activities on the day of said activities." 2 1 " The issue before this Court is whether the Board committed an error of law, made findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence, or abused its discretion in imposing a conditional use subject to Conditions 6 and 7. DISCUSSION We must now re-evaluate whether the Board abused its discretion, committed an error of law or made findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence. POA Co. v. Findlay Township Zoning Hearing Board, 551 Pa. 689, 698, 713 A.2d 70, 75 (1989). An abuse of discretion occurs when a board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 698, 713 A.2d at 75. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that was reached. Id. A trial court, having determined that a board committed neither an abuse of discretion nor error of law, is bound to affirm the decision of the board as long as the board's findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Spargo v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Municipality of Bethel Park, 128 Pac Commw. 193,204, 563 A.2d 213, 217 (1989) rearguement denied. Moreover, a trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of a board, absent a manifest abuse of discretion. B&B Shoe v. Manheim Borough, 28 Pa. Commw. 275 (1977). The law regarding conditional use permits states that a conditional use permit must be granted if the applicant meets the specific requirements in the ordinance, unless the use will be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. 3 ~--- Wheaton v. Zoning Hearing Board of Municipality of Penn Hills, 130 Pa. Commw. 201, 204-205, 567 A.2d 779, 781 (1989). The burden then shifts to the protesters to present evidence that the proposed use has a detrimental effect on health, safety and welfare. (d. at 204-205, 567 A.2d at 781. A board of supervisors may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards, in addition to those expressed in the zoning ordinance, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the Municipalities Planning Code (hereinafter "MPC") in the zoning ordinance. MPC S603(c)(2); Levin v. Board of Supervisors of Benner Township, Centre County, 669 A.2d 1063, 1073 (Pa. Commw. 1995). Any conditions that the supervisors wish to impose upon the proposed conditional use must be upheld if the conditions are reasonably related to the health, safety or welfare of the public. Clinton County Solid Waste Authority v. Wayne Township, 164 Pa. Commw. 632, 646-647, 643 A.2d 1162,1169 (1994) (requiring inspection of incoming waste and requiring construction of cyclone fence to protect site were held to be reasonable conditions imposed in a landfill conditional use), see also Mosside Associates, Ltd. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Municipality of Monroeville, et aI., 70 Pac Commw. 555, 557,454 A.2d 199, 201 (1982). In evaluating the contentions of Lettermen, Inc., the Court may only abrogate the conditions of the Decision if it finds the Board either committed an error of lavy or abused its discretion. Valley View Civic Association v. Board of Adjustment, 501 Pa. 550,462 A.2d 637 (1983); Limely v. Zoning Hearing Board of Port Vue 4 ,. " " Borough, 533 Pa 340, 625 A.2d 54 (1993). An abuse of discretion can be found where a board's findings and resulting conditions on approval are not supported by substantial evidence. Id. The Silver Spring Township Zoning Ordinance Section 704.3 provides: "The Board of Supervisors in approving conditional use applications may attach conditions considered necessary to protect the public welfare and the purposed listed above, including conditions which are more re:otricti'/9 than those established for other uses in the same zone." It is clear that the Board has the authority, pursuant to Section 603 (c)(2) of the MPC, to attach reasonable conditions and safeguards, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of the MPC and the relevant zoning ordinance. Clinton County Solid Waste Authority v. Wayne Twp., 164 Commw. 632, 643 A.2d 1162 (1994 ). Pennsylvania law states that conditions which are not related to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the public would be unnecessarily warranted and an unreasonable intermeddling with the applicant's ownership of his property. Van Sciver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 396 Pa. 657, 152 A.2d 717 (1959). Additionally, the courts have routinely required that the record contain substantial evidence to support a finding of fact which in turn is used to justify a condilion based on health, safety and welfare concerns. Abernathy v. Zoning Hearing Board of Hampton Township, 119 Pac Commw. 193, 54.6 A.2d 1311 (1988). 5 " CONDITION 6 In our previous opinion, we affirmed the Board's Condition 6 limiting the clubhouse and banquet facility to the footprint of the existing building. This decision was based upon our misunde(standing that according to the Clubhouse Schematics, the combined gross square footage of the ground floor and the first floor of the facility would be 9,350 feet. We rendered our decision believing the entire facility would be constructed entirely within the footprint of the existing buildings. However, upon further review, it is clear that Lettermen, Inc. submitted a conditional use plan that depicted development of improvements for a clubhouse and related uses outside the footprint and interior dimensions of the existing building. The plan shows two additions to the existing barn structure, in addition to a patio area adjacent to the restaurant. The ordinance governing the present case is the 1995 Zoning Ordinance for Silver Spring Township 8428. Section 428.5 of the ordinance permits golf courses to include "clubhouses" which consist of: A. Restaurant, snack bar, lounge and banquet facilities; B. Locker and restrooms; C. Pro shop; D. Administrative offices; E. Golf cart and maintenance equipment storage and service facility; F. Guest lodging; G. Fitness and health equipment. In our previous, opinion, we concluded that the proposed facility as evidenced by the Clubhouse Schematics allows all of the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance. We still adhere to this notion. We also concluded that only 84 seats 6 " were necessary to accommodate golf banquets. Here, we made a miscalculation and failed to take into account that many tournaments held for charitable purposes include two (2) foursomes per hole; in otherwords, two (2) groups of four (4) people per hole. Furthermore, Section 418.5 of the zoning ordinance sets forth specific criteria to establish a golf course as a conditional use. It states that golf courses may include accessory uses, provided such uses are reasonably sized and located in order to afford incidental service to the golf course employees and users. Upon further review, it is the decision of this Court not to limit the clubhouse to the existing footprint because it would be unreasonably restrictive for the proposed facility. The proposed facility, as evidenced by the Clubhouse Schematics, adheres to the accessory uses as permitted in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, we reverse our originai decision and uphold Appellant's request to strike Condition 6 in the Conditional Use Approval and permit Appellant to proceed in accordance with the Clubhouse Schematics. CONDITON 7 With regard to Condition 7, Lettermen, Inc. contends that no evidence was presented to demonstrate any negative effects of the plans presented and no findings of fact were made by the Board concluding that such negative effects would occur to support Condition 7. Lettermen, Inc. further argues that the restriction is an impermissible intrusion into the use of the land and is not necessary to protect the public. as required by the Pennsylvania M.C.P., case law 7 and the zoning ordinance. Appellant also claims that the proposed condition nullifies the ordinance by making the restaurant and dining facilities largely unusable for substantial periods of the year. This would include days on which golf activities are curtailed by various weather conditions (e.g. rain, snow, wind, cold, etc.). Additionally, Lettermen, Inc. contend that Condition 7 is arbitrary and capricious. It is the decision of this Court that the Board acted reasonably in restricting the use of the restaurant and banquet facilities to golf-related activities. The only modification on Condition 7 is that Lettermen, Inc. is permitted to use the restaurant and banquet facility on any day as long it corresponds with a principal golf-related activity. 1 The banquet facilities are permitted to be used at anytime throughout the year, so long as they are being used in conjunction with a principal golf related activity.2 As long as the banquet is golf related, use of the banquet facility is fully permitted. This condition is clearly supported by the testimony of Jeffrey S. Austin on behalf of Lettermen, Inc. during which Mr. Austin emphasized the need to have banquet facilities in order to provide golf outing opportunities. Mr. Austin stated, "( get really upset when somebody continually bangs the idea that we are in the banquet business. We are in the banquet business to service the golf course and , During Re-Argument, all parties agreed that restricting the use of banquet facilities to the day of said activity was excessive. 2 For example, the banquet facilities may be used for league organizational purposes before the initiation of the golf season, or at the conclusion of the season. 8 " that's it." (Notes to Testimony of Hearing held (hereinafter "N.T.") page 107, lines 17-20). Additionally, Mr. Austin specifically stated, "I am not in the wedding business, believe me." (N.T. page 105, lines 24-25). Thus, it is clear that Condition 7 comports with the testimony provided by Mr. Austin on behalf of Lettermen, Inc. at the hearing. Therefore, we affirm the Board's Condition 7 limiting the use of the banquet facility, with the noted stipulation of the parties. 9 ~. ~ ~ oj$- {) ? Steven J. Fishman, Esquire Fishman & Morganthal 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 C. Grainger Bowman, Esquire Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrie, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C. 114 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Steven A. Stine, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033 " ! SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETILEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement"), made this JHb. day of May, 2000, by and between the TOWNSHIP OF SILVER SPRING (the "Township"), and LETIERMEN, INC. (the "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, there presently is pending in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania at No. 358 C.D. 2000 an appeal of the decision of the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, which annulled Condition 5 of the Conditional Use Decision CU.98-6 of the Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township; and WHEREAS, Condition 5 required that if warranted by PennDOT, Developer shall provide the funds necessary to improve the roadway and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, which funding requirements would be reduced by the amount. if any, of prior developer contributions made specifically for such purpose at said intersection; and WHEREAS, both the Township and the Developer acknowledge that the final outcome of the aforementioned appeal is uncertain and unpredictable; and WHEREAS, the Township and Developer both desire to settle and determine, with finality, the present appeal in the Commonwealth Court in a manner which will best serve the interests of the present and future residents of the Township of Silver Spring. 1 EXHIBIT I D ";J~, < " NOW, THEREFORE,' in their mutual effort to settle and determine, with finality, the aforementioned appeal, the Township and Developer do hereby agree to the following: 1. The Developer shall pay and deliver to the Township, upon approval of a land development plan for the golf course proposed by Developer and prior to its recordation in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County and prior to the issuance of any permits to construct the golf course or any portion thereof, cash or check in the sum of six thousand and nolOO dollars ($6,000.00) as its nonrefundable contribution to the Township to be utilized at the discretion of the Township, for the improvement of Rich Valley Road and/or the improvement andlor signalization of the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. 2. Upon execution of this Agreement by Developer and Township, Township shall file a Praecipe to withdraw the aforementioned appeal. 3. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto with regard to the settlement of the aforementioned appeal, and there are no covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings either oral or written between said parties other than herein expressly set forth or referenced. No subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding on any party unless reduced in writing and signed by all parties. 2 'q:rc'~_T__",~., ~__, ~" ,111I " . . 4. This Agreement is made for the purposes previously set forth in the introductory clauses hereof and shall be binding upon the Township, its successors and assigns, and Developer and its heirs, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day, month and year first above written. ATTEST: TOWNSHIP OF SILVER SPRING fl C"'/h ~ ~'J. u....CC-i:I.2'l ~() Secretary ~~~;!!~b WITNESS: LETTERMEN, INC. iZ.t. - /.-r it- n ~ _!-1' L-I- UA' J o~ / . ~A./'-.v. [.//J _ J./ {J ~;de~ ~ CLc,k 3 ,'-<<,~"- ",' 0 """'--1 .- , ,. SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP Wayne M. Pecht, ChaJ.nn:ul Marla L Lcwlll, Vlce.ch:Ur= Jan N. Lclllanc William C. DWUl Jackie: Eakin ~---,-- --' ' September 23, 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday 40 South Middlesex Road Carlisle, PA 17013 Letterman, Inc. Is3 South Hanover Street Carlisle,PA 17013 RE: Subdivision Plan 99-10? Dear Applicants: The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors at lts meeting held September 22, 1999 granted oCthe following waiver requests for the above noted preliminary subdivision plan: 1. Show all ex.isting featut"es within zoo-reet of subject tract (402.03.4). 2. Show all existing healthy trees.with a caliper of6" or more (402.03.6). 3. Concrete monuments shall be provided along property line of parent tract (608.1). 4. Street treeS shall be provided along all road frontages (61l.03). s. The plan shail be drawn al a scale of lO-feet, 20-feet. 30-feet, 40- feet, SO-feet or I OO-fect 10 the inch (402.01.1). 6. Iron pins (608.02) The Board of Supervisors at the same meeting approved the above noted preliminary subdivision subject to the following conditions: I 1. Provide statement on plan indicating available unused quotr. of permitted single-family detached dwellings and state which lot or lots carry these rights (202.5)(204.5). J 647~ C~\i;le Pike . M~h~ni,;burg. PA 170~~.2391 . (717) 766-0178 . (71i) 766.1696 FAX """'EXHIBm;-'~".' 11~~tt~";1~*' "_i,,;lI.~ -"P' .,~--~._. , I. , .. , . Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday Letterman, fnc. September 23. 1999 Page 2 I I J ,!i 'i :1' 2. Waiver statement must be revised to acknowledge the outcome of requested waivers (402.04.15). 3. Plan must be signed by lando""ller and properly notarized (402.06.3). Provide signature/notary block for ~els and Deborah S ~ls. ,4. Planning module must be approved by D.E.P. (402.05.2). . 5. Show location and ~escription of propllsed lot line markers and monuments (402.04.12). 6. Provide ultimate right-or-way width along Ridge Hill Road (602.03.1). 7. , 8. 9. ~W~:~ " ,,"" ',_" ,_ Provide copies of right. of-way agreements for gas line and PP&L right-cf-wa)' (402.06:1). Show iequited sight distance for driveW:l:y locations (602.17.4). Provide a typical drivewl1Y detail that meets all tbe requirements of Section 602.17. 10. Maximum lot coverage is stated incorrectly on plan as minimum lot coverage. Show right-of-way associated with AlIegh~ny pipe lin/ This plan reflects that a portion of the proper:;>' is ciwnedby David M. Daniels and Deborah S. Daniels, which was 'OOt reflected on the previous Conditional Use Plan for this site. I\. 12. 13. Provide most current revision date on plan set. 14. That all water to be llsed for irrigating the golf cOlltse must be drawn directly from the Conodoguinet Creek in accordance with the rules and regulations of any agency having jurisdiction over said Creek and its water, and that no water shall be used from Wells on the Subject Property for irrigation. - .,- ..".", ! . Mr. lll1d Mrs. Jack. Sunday Letterman, Inc. September 23. 1999 Page 3 15. That the lights for illuminating the proposed driving range must. comply in all respects with the To\\nshlp Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. 16. That the lights tor illuminating the proposed driving range must be elttinguished at 9:30 o'clock P.M.. prevailing time. 17. That the Applicant shall provide a comprehensive traffic analysis of the intCfsections of (a) Rich Valley Road and Wcl'tzville Road, (b) R.ich Vaney Road and Carlisle Pike, and (c) Rich Valley Road and all Feeder StTeetslocated between (a) and (b), in order to identify and fund road improvements needed to address the increase of traffic volwm: caused by the golf course use. 18. That if warrant cd by PcnnOOT, Applicant shall provide the funds. n~cssary to improve the roadway and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. Applicant's funding requirements .shall be reduced by the amount, if any, of prior developer- contributions made specifically for such purpose at said intersection.. 19. That except for an outside entrance canopy, the proposed adaptation ofthe barn structure nearest Rich Valley R.oad denoted for clubhouse purposes must be limited and confined to the existing interior dirnens'fons (width, length, height, area and volume) of said structure and within the "footprint" thereof. . 20. That restaurant and dining facilities of the clubhouse shall not be used for banquet purposes except in ~onjunction with princip:tl golf-related activities on the day of said activities. 21. That the portion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road shall be substantially completed before commencing thc construction of any structures in the Residential Subdivision. 22. ..That the proposed office use of the existing dwelling house on the Subject Property shall be limited to the immediate business of operating the golf course and shall not be used by or for any other enterprise. 23. That any use of the floodplain area oithe Subject Property shall be in stdct compliance with all regulations of this Township, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of the United States or any of their agencies having jurisdiction, applicable to such floodplain use and preservation. '" i ~ , . Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday Lcnerman, Inc. September 23, 1999 Page 4 24. That the Applicant's commitment to the reverter conditior. made in the rez:oning proceedings is hereby extended and made a continuing condition of this decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant Township Manager. r3It&L- William S. Cook Township Manager WSClksd cc: Mr. Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant TOl'o1lShip Manager Mr. Mark B. Bruening, P.E., Township Engineer Fisher Mowery Rosendale and Associates, Inc., Applicant's Engineer Mr. Steven Fishman, Esquire "10~~1" ,,~" _""". .... r " .' r SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP Wayne M. Pecht, Chairman Jackie Eakin, Vice-Chairman Jan N. LeBlanc William C. Dunn Maria L. Lewis September 14, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday 40 South Middlesex Road Carlisle, P A 17013 Letterman, Inc. 716 North West Street Carlisle, P A 17013 RE: Subdivision Plan 99-1 OP Dear Applicants: The Silver Spring Township Board of Supervisors at its meeting held September 12, 2001 reaffirmed the granting of the following waiver requests originally approved at its meeting held September 22, 1999 for the above noted preliminary subdivision plan: I. Show all existing features within 200-feet of subject tract (402.03.4). 2. Show all existing healthy trees with a caliper of 6" or more (402.03.6). 3. Concrete monuments shall be provided along property line of parent tract (608.1). 4. Street trees shall be provided along all road frontages (611.03). 5. The plan shall be drawn at a scale of 10-feet, 20-feet, 30-feet, 40- feet, 50-feet or 100-feet to the inch (402.01.1). 6. Iron pins (608.02) In addition, the Board of Supervisors reapproved the above noted preliminary subdivision subject to the following conditions: EXHIBIT 1. Provide statement on plan indicating available unused quota of ~ permitted single-family detached dwellings and state which lot or i lots carry these rights (202.5)(204.5). F 6475 Carlisle Pike . Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2391 . (717) 766-<l178 . (717) 766-1696 FAX '",<~ -". ,," '."",,"" "I' "~ - .""" ~~=7'" , c Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday Letterman, Inc. September 14,2001 Page 2 2. Waiver statement must be revised to acknowledge the outcome of requested waivers (402.04.15). 3. Plan must be signed by landowner and properly notarized (402.06.3). Provide signature/notary block for David M. Daniels and Deborah S. Daniels. 4. Planning module must be approved by D.E.P. (402.05.2). 5. Show location and description of proposed lot line markers and monuments (402.04.12). 6. Provide ultimate right-of-way width along Ridge Hill Road (602.03.1). 7. Provide copies of right-of-way agreements for gas line and PP&L right-of-way (402.06.1). 8. Show required sight distance for driveway locations (602.17.4). 9. Provide a typical driveway detail that meets all the requirements of Section 602.17. 10. Maximum lot coverage is stated incorrectly on plan as minimum lot coverage. 11. Show right-of-way associated with Allegheny pipe line. 12. This plan reflects that a portion of the property is owned by David M. Daniels and Deborah S. Daniels, which was not reflected on the previous Conditional Use Plan for this site. 13. Provide most current revision date on plan set. 14. That all water to be used for irrigating the golf course must be drawn directly from the Conodoguinet Creek in accordance with the rules and regulations of any agency having jurisdiction over said Creek and its water, and that no water shall be used from wells on the Subject Property for irrigation. ;;_',e~",",_" ','1 ~ - ~,_. " , . , ,. I I ( Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday Letterman, Inc. September 14,2001 Page 3 15. That the lights for illuminating the proposed driving range must comply in all respects with the Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. 16. That the lights for illuminating the proposed driving range must be extinguished at 9:30 o'clock P.M., prevailing time. 17. That the Applicant shall provide a comprehensive traffic analysis of the intersections of (a) Rich Valley Road and Wertzville Road, (b) Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike, and (c) Rich Valley Road and all Feeder Streets located between (a) and (b), in order to identify and fund road improvements needed to address the increase of traffic volume caused by the golf course use. 18. That if warranted by PennDOT, Applicant shall provide the funds necessary to improve the roadway and install electric traffic signals at the intersection of Rich Valley Road and Carlisle Pike. Applicant's funding requirements shall be reduced by the amount, if any, of prior developer- contributions made specifically for such purpose at said intersection. 19. That except for an outside entrance canopy, the proposed adaptation of the bam structure nearest Rich Valley Road denoted for clubhouse purposes must be limited and confined to the existing interior dimensions (width, length, height, area and volume) of said structure and within the "footprint" thereof. 20. That restaurant and dining facilities of the clubhouse shall not be used for banquet purposes except in conjunction with principal golf-related activities on the day of said activities. 21. That the portion of the golf course on the southeast side of Rich Valley Road shall be substantially completed before commencing the construction of any structures in the Residential Subdivision. 22. That the proposed office use of the existing dwelling house on the Subject Property shall be limited to the immediate business of operating the golf course and shall not be used by or for any other enterprise. 23. That any use of the floodplain area of the Subject Property shall be in strict compliance with all regulations of this Township, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and of the United States or any of their agencies having jurisdiction, applicable to such floodplain use and preservation. "-",,~; ". ." , '," -_.q', ~ - ~"- N J:L - 1 ' , oI! ,.10 ',. Mr. and Mrs. Jack Sunday Letterman, Inc. September 14,2001 Page 4 24. That the Applicant's commitment to the reverter condition made in the rezoning proceedings is hereby extended and made a continuing condition of this decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant Township Manager. Sirtcerely,.. I L~,~\,~ William S. Cook Township Manager WSC/ksd cc: Mr. Kelly K. Kelch, Assistant Township Manager Mr. Mark B. Bruening, P.E., Township Engineer Fisher Mowery Rosendale and Associates, Inc., Applicant's Engineer Mr. Steven Fishman, Esquire .", ". ',,", -~, ",~ ';" -' -,/' " - ~ "..iJ> . .... ~,." . "j . . i nJ[ TifjfRTil"T' ., ' '" . ' ' ~ \Ii ~ ~ ~ ", 6 . CD ~ , ~ I '" (:) - ~ d ~ (:-, '-... ~ ~ ....... ~ ~~ ~ ",( ~ Vi ~ "'~ (,,) ---- ~ ~ ~ :::. .::> 1_ j:JJllI![ _ - ~,~ ~ ~.,~"~_ J;;,~~-""~",,,_ '''''<'- ~=~'*'-~~ \ ,~flJ., 0 HIn~#)_W","',;r"WR:~'''i''W,,,,![j''1)lW:(''i'K~I#t~t;fio/i.~~ffl'1\~''1~W"!i;l'1"~rey~llI~~; ,-1X,,'#,,*~I.,,',~.r~-J, *'" .,. u.s. posial Sewvic:e CER1i'iiP~1E1iJ Mt\,H, RE~-::IEB!Pu (Domestic Mail Only; Ale fns!11tanc:e Coverage Provldso7 ==~""",_,__---=='""__.__~""'~'~='~"".~---=='OC".o.,==",,.~.~=- _.','__ c[] c[] ..J] .J] CJ CJ c[] c[] ;;T ;;T Postage $ CJ CJ CJ CJ Certified Fee Ul Ul Postmark Return Receipt Fee Here c[] c[] (Endorsement Required) r"I r"I CJ CJ Restricted Delivery Fee CJ CJ (Endorsement Required) CJ CJ CJ CJ ;;T ;;T rn rn IT" IT" IT" IT" CJ CJ ,... ,... See.. C"'i9"~ 1''-''-- .O~ Total Postage & Fees $ Recipient's Name (please Print Clearly) (to be c:ompleted by mailer) ,J!QL9,fm~l!m.~lJ;yj,!?!;!1;'."LQ,f".$.UY~);nJ;p,g"",TwP." Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. 6475 Carlisle pike 7::i'iY.-siiie:ZIP:;;s-nnnn<mnmnunn------ ____u_________n_nm________ !:IeQI'!,mj,,,,l1.!;>.];!.!;g. tA.NA. \ ;" ()I-S ~ 7" ESi-s "'~, ,.....,.,. ~~. "' ~ ,.-- -.,.. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Lettermen-~', InCa CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township NO. 01-5877 CIVIL 1<9: WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) TO: Board of Supervisors of Silver Spring Township We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between Lettermen. Inca VSa Board of ~llpp.r"i~or!=:. n'f !=:il'm~r !=:pring 'T't'"'lwnch;p pending before you, do ccmnand you that the record of the action aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges of our Court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within 70 days of the date hereof, together with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth. WITNESS, the Honorable our said Court, at Carlisle, Pa., the 10th day of October ilt 2001. t.5 -{<KS Curtis R. Lona Prothonotary ~..~.K~,~ ;;~~ ' " _, J! _ _.~".,_' .,~ " "'~ ~.-- - - , .,.. -=.~ "~"r' ~~'~"'P~.';'