Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-00935 ~ co ~ N r- N -', LlJ~;2 -"<( C1:::::,j (.)..,:; -.- (.);.-t: --c. 0.: l~__. '~ 'L.-''' 1:1::.J ,'~)'C-:, ;-. ":'6"; c.1:J ~~~'- I ::;J% U-I...... n:.Z =:dul O~ tUuJ U4::C 0-_ (;3 0.. ,- .ct ...:: C'- Q"\ :::J 0 Q"\ U - . . Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and consisting of three tracts of ground totalling approximately 27 acres of unimproved land, all located within the zoning district of the said township designated as Light Industrial, 4, On or about February 12, 1998, Appellant submitted to Middlesex Township an application for approval of a Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan with respect to Appellant's real property and proposing the improvement of the property by construction of a 350,000-square-foot warehouse or distribution center thereon, Said plan, as amended, supplemented and revised, is referred to as the "Shady Lane Warehouse Plan". 5 , The proposed use of the property as a warehouse or distribution center was, at the time of the application for plan approval, a permitted use under the applicable zoning ordinances for the Light Industrial zone as provided in the Middlesex Township Zoning Ordinance, 6, The area of Appellant's Shady Lane Warehouse Plan had been the subject of a prior subdivision plan known as "Redco Business plaza" which was approved by Appellee Middlesex Township in 1987-88 which restricted access to the property from the sole public street near the property (Shady Lane) to one proposed public street depicted on the said prior subdivision plan and designated thereon as "Redco Court". Said prior subdivision as approved by Middlesex Township was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of and for Cumberland County in early 1988 at Plan Book 55, 2 I '.' " Pages 22, 22a and 22b. Another copy of such plan depicting a site triangle at the intersection of Redco Court and Shady Lane, a revision which was a condition of Appellee's approval, is in the possession of Middlesex Township as part of its official records concerning the Redco Business Plaza plan. 7. During review of the Appellant's Shady Lane Warehouse Plan by Appellee's planning commission, staff, engineers and others, it became apparent that Appellee's position was that Redco Court, although depicted and proposed on the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan as previously approved as part of the Redco Business Plaza plan, was not acceptable by Appellee without waivers concerning elevation of the proposed access driveway and concerning the requested "clear site triangle". 8. Well before August of 1998 and in an effort to address staff comments and concerns regarding the access roadway, Appellant submitted application for waivers from strict compliance with regard to the elevation of the accessway and the clear site triangle provisions of the Appellee's ordinances as interpreted by the Appellee's engineers and others. 9. Despite repeated requests by Appellant that Appellee do so, Appellee refused to act upon the application for such waivers. 10. In anticipation that Appellee might deny the waivers, although there had been no material change in township ordinances or regulations since the Redco Business Plaza plan approval, and since access to the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan site would be 3 " jeopardized or denied by Appellee, Appellant submitted an alternative site plan as part of and as an alternative to the access driveway system which had been depicted on the earlier- submitted plan. This alternative access plan was, in all other material aspects, identical to the originally submitted land development and subdivision plan. Such alternative accessway plan was hand-delivered to Appellee on August 4, 1998 as a possible alternative and a supplement to the then-pending subdivision and land development plan. 11. Despite repeated requests by Appellant that the Appellee act on the waivers and make determinations and decisions concerning waivers required for the originally proposed access driveway, Appellee failed and refused to act upon waiver requests or take any other action until October 30, 1998. 12. Because the Appellee failed to take any action on the alternative accessway plan within the 90-day time frame required under the Municipalities Planning Code for action by the municipality on such application and any extensions which had been granted by the Appellant through November 4, 1998, the said alternative access proposal is deemed to have been approved in accordance with the provisions of the Municipalities Planning Code. Appellant has filed an action in mandamus as to require the township to accept the said alternate access plan as approved, which said action is docketed to No. 1999-193. 4 ". .// 13. Despite the fact that the township had never submitted the alternative accessway plan to the township's planning commission for review and had never notified Appellant of any such review's being scheduled or of the plan's being discussed at any meetings, Appellee, by written notice dated January 18, 1999 from Mary G. Justh, Township Secretary, notified Appellant that the revised grading and site plan or alternative access plan for the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan had been acted upon and rej ected at a meeting of the township's board of supervisors on January 4, 1999. A copy of said correspondence is attached hereto for reference purposes as Exhibit "A". 14. The action or actions of Appellee Middlesex Township constituted error's of law and an abuse of discretion and/or its decision or decisions was not or were not supported by substantial evidence as more specifically set forth as follows: (a) The Appellee's attempted rejection of the plan is unlawful because the Appellee failed to take any action upon the plan within the time frames established under the Municipalities Planning Code and such plan is, therefore, deemed to have been approved. Appellant submits, too, that the letter of January 18, 1999 erroneously and unlawfully fails to take into account that the Appellant had requested, and it was within the Appellee's power and authority to act on the waivers requested, as to the original accessway proposal well 5 within the 90-day time frame provided by the Municipalities Planning Code. The Appellee, however, failed to act within such time frame, thus leaving itself insufficient time to act upon the alternative accessway plan. Nothing that the Appellant had done or said, in writing or otherwise, in any way extended the time for consideration of an action upon the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan, whether the original accessway plan or the revised accessway plan, and the Appellee's tortured logic to try to avoid its own responsibility to act in a timely fashion is simply an effort by the municipality to try to belatedly explain and seek excuse for the municipality's failure to comply with the Municipalities Planning Code. (b) The Appellee failed to act within the time frames required under the Municipalities Planning Code and such plan is, therefore, deemed to be approved, such 90-day time frame for action having expired no later than November 2, 1998. (c) The Appellee erroneously, and in a further effort to explain or justify its failure to act in a timely fashion on the earlier requested waivers and/or on the alternative plan, claims that the plan was not submitted in sufficient copies or with the applicable fees when, in fact, the alternative accessway plan was submitted as an alternative to and supplement to a 6 I " , I oJ pending plan for which sufficient copies, proper fees and all supporting documentation had already been submitted along with the required application forms. (d) The Appellee erroneously determined or proposes that the use as a warehouse facility is not permitted when, in fact, at the time of the original submission of the application, warehousing was a permitted use in the Light Industrial district. (e) The Appellee erroneously claims that the access driveway "could" cause stormwater runoff to back up "possibly" onto adjoining lands of Capuano. In fact, calculations of stormwater runoff which had been submitted as part of the original plan would not have materially changed and the Appellee has failed to show as a fact that the post-development drainage patterns would be any different than the pre-development patterns. In fact, the stormwater drainage facilities meet or exceed the requirements of all township ordinance sections. (f) Appellee erroneously claims that the proposed improvements to Shady Lane and the intersection of Shady Lane and Route 11 lack design specifics. In so doing, Appellant notes that Appellee has accepted the fact that all materials that had been submitted as part of the original application for plan approval were considered as part of the alternative accessway plan action, thus 7 "'- .;. section leads to the conclusion that such facilities "are needed". In fact, within the last 12 to 18 months, the Appellee itself repaved the entire length of Shady Lane and constructed no gutters or other drainage facilities whatsoever. Such facilities cannot be constructed along Shady Lane within existing right-of-way and the Appellee has, despite repeated requests for cooperation and assistance of Appellee in obtaining such addi tional right-of-way and to improve and upgrade Shady Lane to the township's own street standards, rej ected all such invitations and requests. Any such roadside gutters or other drainage facilities on or adj acent to Appellant's Shady Lane warehouse site as proposed meet or exceed any ordinance or other lawful requirements of the township's ordinances. (2) The township's allegation that "technical information" was somehow deficient or insufficient with respect to determining structural capabilities of Shady Lane is not a requirement imposed by any ordinance section. Further, as Appellee well knows, it has itself zoned the area in question for light industrial uses and, as previously stated, repaved the entire length of Shady Lane without conducting its own investigations to determine the 9 .. ,~ site. As Appellee well knows, the intersection of its township road with the state roadway is and has been for many years inadequately designed and maintained. Insufficient right-of-way is owned or controlled by the Appellee at said intersection to permit any enlargement or changes other than as submitted with the Appellant's traffic study and supplements thereto and as part of its Shady Lane Warehouse Plan. Appellant had offered to construct additional improvements if the township were to acquire additional right-of-way at said intersection but all such offers were rejected by Appellee in its refusal to cooperate in any fashion in the obtaining of additional right-of-way at any point. (4) The township erroneously claims that the designs or plans fail to show cross-sections of existing topography and proposed design is unsupported in that the township's ordinances do not require any such cross-sections more than, those which were part of the Shady Lane Warehouse plan and supplemental documentation submitted by Appellant. (5) The township's claim that there was no list of improvements for Shady Lane and other 11 " roadway improvements and the like is simply erroneous and unsupported. To the contrary, the Appellant had, on many occasions, proposed to undertake all construction costs of all improvements as depicted or as could be constructed within existing rights-of-way of the township's public street known as Shady Lane or which could be constructed without requiring additional backwater or other floodplain-type easements. Multiple requests and offers by the Appellant to do such additional work on the condition that the township acquire additional rights-of-way, easements and other property l'ights necessary to execute such work were rej ected by the township and Appellant was thus forced to revise and limit the scope of proposed street improvements to existing rights-of- way. The township's claim of violation of Ordinance Section 703.C(12) (b) as to an alley or secondary-service drive to serve commercial and industrial establishments is erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence in that such ordinance section specifically allows for alternative provisions for services and, under all of the circumstances, the proposed use and development of the site does provide for 12 ,'. alternatives, i.e., an access driveway to be constructed around the entire circumference of the proposed building to allow complete access for services required at the facility. Said driveway system as proposed, therefore, given the use of the facility as a warehouse, does, on its face, provide for alternative methods of servicing the building which might otherwise, in a more commercial or retail development, be provided by an alleyway but is not required as part of the Shady Lane Warehouse Plan. (g) The township's allegation or assertion that the cartway width of Shady Lane along the frontage of the site is not depicted is erroneous. To the contrary, as part of the overall application for approval of the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan of the Shady Lane warehouse, cartway widths of the entire length of Shady I"ane were depicted, both as existing and as proposed. (h) The township's claim that the southbound lane . of Shady Lane is inadequate is unsupported by substantial evidence and is legally erroneous. The southbound lane abuts properties not within the control of the Appellant and cannot be constructed to a larger width 'without the township's acquisition of additional right-of-way which 13 " it has refused to do. Further, to widen the roadway only on the northbound or the Appellant's side of the roadway would result in eccentric widening which the township expressly does not permit. (i) The Appellee erroneously claims that no stormwater management plan was submitted but, in fact, the revised grading and site plan for alternative accessway plan made no substantial or material changes in the stormwater management plan which had been submitted as part of the original application. Appellant submits no revisions were required and Appellee has shown no substantial evidence that any change in the stormwater management plan woul.d have been required and, thus, such a claim is unsupported by substantial. evidence. (j) The township's recitation to Section 102 and general concerns of health, safety and general welfare as a basis for denying the plan constitutes an error of law and an abuse of discretion in that such ordinance provisions are void for vagueness and are of insufficient specificity to impose any discernable standard which an applicant or a landowner can be expected to meet. (k) The township's claim that restricted geometry of the curves of Shady Lane north of the bridge, together with the anticipation of tractor-trailer traffic upon Shady Lane, is erroneous and unsupported by substantial 14 I ,I . I " ^ evidence. Further, Section 702. B of the township's subdivision and land development ordinances are too vague to be enforceable and provide no guidance whatsoever to a discernable standard which a prospective landowner or developer can be expected to meet. Further, to the extent the township claims that the mix of tractor- trailer traffic with other uses served by or abutting Shady Lane is contrary to the "harmonious integration" which the township requires, such position is inconsistent with the basic fact that the township itself determined to zone the large portions of the township served by Shady Lane as a Light Industrial district when the only public street access to such areas, including the Shady Lane warehouse site, runs through the Commercial-Retail district of the township which township now claims creates a condition which is not "harmonious". 15. Appellant believes and, therefore, avers that Appellee's actions are and have been intended to be wrongful as to Appellant and simply an effort to stop any development on Appellant's property purely for the purpose of advancing the interests of other private property owners within the township and/or for the purpose of avoiding the township's responsibilities to maintain for safe, adequate and convenient use its roadways and bridges, specifically those which are components of the township roadway known as Shady Lane. 15 ~\O~L!S~.r >i- 172" * ll- I -+c.~-+c , -+c...-~ * * 1959 >I- -1<* IQtrSSrI\~ MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP . .. t< BO.lId of Supervisors Honerl M Epplev. Joseph V Capu;:lnO, enarJus W Shughnn .1.<11 N. MIDDLESEX ROAD. SUITE ,. C,\RLlSLE. PA 170" . 24lJ-I409o, 795.9631. FAX 249.R564 MunIcipal Secretary Mary G. JUSII1 Zoning Oltlcer' Mark D, Carpenter January 18, 1999 ~~~ \~~~ \. f,\T\q~l\.\ t ~;. '-. \'l.lb\..L I. (~ 0: . U () ~'O..... .{u o ./ 05'<"9!)V€-z.\, Mr. Mark X. DiSanto Triple Crown Corporation 5351 Jaycee Avenue HarriSburg, PA 17112 He: Revised Grading and Site Plan (For Consideration Only if Redco Court Access is Rejected) For Shady Lane Warehouse Dated: July 30, 1998 Dear Mr. DiSanto: I write to you in my capacity as Secretary of Middlesex Township on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Middlesex Township (the "Board") in order to communicate to you the decision of the Board made with respect to the above-referenced Plan at a pUblic meeting held January 4, 1999. The Revised Grading and Site Plan (the "Plan") was delivered to Middlesex Township on August 4, 1998 with a letter from your attorney, Bruce F. Bratton, Esquire, dated August 4, 1998 directed to Mark carpenter, the Zoning Officer. That letter, a copy of which is attached hereto, provided in part that the Plan: . . . is a revision to be made part of or considered a part of the preliminary subdivision and land development plan for this project site if and onlv__~~ the township government should reject the use of Redco Court or impose such restrictions that its Use becomes impossible as a means of access to the proposed facility. (emphasis in original) On October 30, 1998, the Board took action on the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan for Shady Lane Warehouse dated February 2, 1998 and last revised July 20, 1998, and in so doing granted certain waiver requests, denied certain other waiver requests and denied the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan. The decision of the Board was communicated to you in writing by letter dated November 3, 1998. , (-'-, 1,1" -1 II ( ,V/I"-") T /1 Mr. Mark X. Disanto .. J;anuary 18, 1999 Page Two " , ~ ". , Therefore, on October 30, 1998, the Board had in fact denied your plan which proposed access to the proposed facility by use of Redco Court. As a result of the decisions by the Board on October 30, 1998 and in consideration of the specific instructions given by your attorney in his letter to Mr. Carpenter of August 4, 1998, the Plan, as of October 30, 1998, was to be considered a revision made part of or considered a part of the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan. As indicated above, on October 30, 1998, the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan was denied. The Plan dated July 30, 1998 constituted a substantial revisi0n to the Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan. For these reasons, the Board on October 30, 1998' referred the Plan to the Middlesex Township Planning Commission. The Zoning Officer by letter dated November 2, 1998 confirmed the need for the Plan to be properly filed and submitted by the submission of the completed application for plan approval, twelve sets of plans with any supporting documentation and the required plan submission fee. Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (the "ordinance"), Section 301 provides that no plans except sketch plans will be considered by the Planning Commission unless the plans, along with an application, all required supporting documentation and the required fees are submitted to the Township Secretary. Section 301 further provides that no application shall be deemed to be filed unless all requirements are met and fees therefor paid in full. Further, Section 303 of the Ordinance requires the subdivider or land developer to submit an application for sUbdivision and land development and copies of the proposed Plan to the Township Secretary. ordinance section 308 provides that the fees set by the Board for review nf plans are payable in advance. Finally, Ordinance Section 501 requires the submission of two copies of the application for review and twelve copies of the preliminary plan. Your purported plan submission was deficient and failed to meet the requirements of Ordinance Section 301, 303 and 308 in that you failed to submit the required application. You further failed to meet the requirements of Section 301 by not submitting the required supporting documentation as described in Ordinance Section 502. Additionally, you failed to submit copies of the plan as required by Ordinance Section 303 and 501. Finally, you failed to submit fees as required by Ordinance sections 301 and 308. , , Mr. Mark X. DiSanto ..J~nuary 18, 1999 Page Three . .. . . .., , Based upon the above, the Plan was never properly submitted and therefore no official action or review of the plan was required by the Township. Without waiver of this position and without prejudice to the Township, the Board by a majority vote on January 4, 1999 denied the Plan for the reasons set forth above as well as those described below. Assuming, but not conceding, that the Plan was properly submitted and could be considered on and after October 30, 1998, the warehouse use proposed on the Plan is not a permitted use in the LI - Light Industrial District. Through Ordinance 8-98 enacted May 6, 1998 (three months prior to the delivery of your Plan to Mr. Carpenter), the Middlesex Township Zoning Ordinance was amended. As a result, warehousing was removed as a permitted use in the LI - Light Industrial District. Such a use is permitted only in the rG - Industrial General District. The Board further denied the Plan for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated October 21, 1998 of Bud Grove, P.E., the Township's engineer. The defects found in the Plan as noted by Mr. Grove and the requirements that have not been met with citations to the Ordinance, if applicable, are set forth below. The access driveway and culvert are proposed to be constructed in an embankment (fill) section and as such are obstructions within the natural drainage way. These obstructions could. cause storm water runoff to backup to the southern property line of the site and possibly into adjoining lands of Capuano. Calculations have not been provided to determine the limits of backwater. This failure of post-development drainage patterns to simulate pre-development patterns is contrary to the requirements of Ordinance Section 1003.1. The failure of the facilities properly to accommodate .storm water drainage is further contr~ry to the requirements of Ordinance Section 713.a which requires such facilities to conform with the requirements of Ordinance Article x. The submitted illustrations of proposed improvements to Shady Lane and the intersection of Shady Lane and Route 11 are lacking in design specifics and requirement information. Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (e) requires that recommended improvements for roadways and intersections shall be listed and shall include external roadway and intersection design. Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (e) further requires all physical roadway improvements to be shown on the preliminary plan. The Plan submitted was defective and did not meet the requirements of Ordinance Section 717.d(2) (e) in the following particulars: , , Mr. Mark X. DiSanto ..~anuary 18, 1999 Page Four . ~. . . .., i a. Roadside gutter and other drainage designs are absent even though drainage improvements are needed; b. The technical information submitted sUpporting pavement designs is insufficient to determine if the pavement section is structurally capable of withstanding fully loaded tractor trailer traffic. More core boring along Shady Lane and analysis is needed to SUpport pavement design; c. No designs, other than "concept designs", were submitted for the Shady Lane/Route 11 intersection. The Cumberland County Planning Commission noted your failure to address the inadequate conditions that would result at this intersection in Report 98-98; d. The designs submitted failed to show cross- sections of existing topography with prOposed design superimposed; and e. No listing of recommended improvements was provided indicating the party responsible for the improvement, the cost and funding of the improvement and the completion date for the improvement. The Plan fails to provide for an alley or secondary service drive serving the proposed facility or, in the alternative, it fails to provide other provisions for service. Ordinance Section 703.C(12) (b) establishes that alleys or secondary service drives serving com.:nercial a..d industrial establishments are required unless other provisions for service are provided. An "alley" (or service drive) is defined in Ordinance Section 202 as a minor right-of-way primarily for service access to the back or sides of properties and not intended for general traffic circulation. No such alley or service drive was designed or proposed by you and no alternative provisions for service were proposed. The Plan further fails to note the cartway width of Shady Lane along the frontage of the site for both existing and proposed conditions. Ordinance 501.s requires the Plan to contain specifications for widths of cartways. The designation of such widths is absent. " , Mr. Mark X. DiSanto ._J~nuary 18, 1999 Page Five . ..", . Ordinance Section 703.c.(2) provides that where a SUbdivision abuts an eXisting street of inadequate width, sUfficient additional width shall be required. The Plan depicts a cartway width for the Southbound lane of Shady Lane along the frontage of the site that is inadequate and should be increased to match the width of the northbound lane in order to avoid eccentric widening. In addition to the above, Ordinance Section 1001 requires the sUbmission of a storm water management plan for each sUbdivision or land development plan. No sUch plan was submitted in reference to the Revi'e. Gr'.ing .n. Site Pl'n. tn '..ition, no revisions were made to the Storm Water Management Plan/Report and Calculations submitted with respect to the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan to make it compatible or consistent with the Revised Grading and Site Plan. Finally, the restricted geometry of the curVes of Shady Lane north of the Shady Lane Bridge together with the anticipated frequency of the tractor trailer traffic traveling Shady Lane as part of the proposed warehouse use preClUde a harmonious integration of the propOsed project with the existing neighborhood contrary to Ordinance Section 702.b. The resulting mix of tractor trailer traffic with both vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic associated with the present Uses on Shady Lane raise sUbstantial and real safety concerns. As with the Preliminary SUbdivision and Land Development Plan that Was denied on October 30, 1998, the revised Grading Site Plan dated JUly 30, 1998 is contrary to the stated purpose of the Ordinance to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the Township and to ensure conditions favorable to the health, Safety and general welfare of the residents c-f the T'::llnship as set. fortn in Ordinance Section 102. CC: Bruce F. Bratton, Esquire Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Yours truly, !11~ _~ Q~ Mary G.' Just{/, Township Secretary . "'-. i { ! :1 'I h ~ I i:- I I I ! I l , . ~ - r . ..,.... >- ..3 >- f"-.. 0- In 1- .,e 7' 0-- C'1 ::-~ <r: ~ 1'.. LIJq l\:=.; ~-~t;) :1:: S~~ ~ liL :r: (.L. :\l ~ c;l'-- ~ C:' r- ~~~; ~~ Or- We.: rJ:':Z '1)- :==h.. CO ;."tlJ il I.L :L: l.l..J {i.1::1... ,- l... -".- ..;:;.: ~ l'-- en => 0 c;"\ 0 ~ .. ....... . " ...-. . a- ...... ! . " . I'l:'.':...'~. ,. ... SENDER: ~ _Completellems 1 endlor2 foraddlllonal services. fl) _Complete Items 3, 4a, and 4b. ~ _Print your name and address on the reverso 01 this form so thai we can return this ~ card 10 you. ~ _Attach this form to the front of the mallplece, or on the back II space doos not e permU. () _Write'Retum Rscs;pt R9questsd'on the mailpiece below the article number. :5 -The Return ReceIpt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date c: delivered. o I i 3. Article Addressed to: 1;;' IE , 8 I I I I also wish to receive the following services (for en extre fee): 1. 0 Addressee's Address 2. 0 Restooted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number Middlesex Township 350 North Middlesex Rd. Carlisle, PA 17013 P 575 532 324 4b. Service Type o Registered o Express Mall o Return Receipllor Merchandise 7. Date at Deiivery I (~l\q 99 B. Addressee's Address (Only if ,equested and fae is paid) IX Certified o Insu,ed o COD 99-935 Civi 102595.9/.60"" Domestic Return Receipt P 5 7 5 5 3 2 3'2 4 . . - . US Postal Service . Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail See reverse Sent to . Middlesex Townsh1p Streel & Number . 350 N. M1ddlesex Rd. Posl Ollice, State, & ZIP Code Carlisle, PA 17013 Postage S CertiliedFce Spedal De1ivoiY Fee Restricted DelivelY Fee on ~ Return Receip\ Showing to ...... Whom & Dale Delivered .~ Return Receipl Showing 10 Whom, <( Date,&Addressee'sAddress o o TOTAL Postag'J & Fees S CD M Postmark or Date E o u- Cf) a. i " .\ " .' situate at 240 Shady Lane, Carlisle (Middlesex Township) , Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. The Petitioner, Curtis M. Barnett, is an adult individual and licensed veterinarian who resides at 7555 Wertzville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 and is an owner of the real property and business known as Carlisle Small Animal Veterinary Clinic situate at 25 Shady Lane, Carlisle (Middlesex Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. The Petitioner, Richard J. Shultz, is an adult individual who resides at 520 Gale Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 and is an owner of the real property and business located thereon, known as Colonial Peddler's Village, situate at 100 Shady Lane, Carlisle, (Middlesex Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 5. The above captioned Land Use Appeal arises from action of the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors denying the Appellant above captioned, Triple Crown Corporation, Inc., approval of a Subdivision and Land Use Plan by written Decision dated January 18, 1999. 6. The Petitioners appeared individually and/or by their undersigned attorney at all proceedings regarding this matter held before the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors and Middlesex Township Planning Commission. 7. The Appellant, Triple Crown Corporation, Inc. filed this Appeal on February 17, 1999. 8. The Petitioners, Lynn D. Hoffman and Robert C. Foltz, Jr. are owners of real property and businesses which are immediately contiguous with (adjacent to) the land proposed to be developed and subdivided by the Appellant. 9. The Petitioners, Curtis M. Barnett and Richard J. Shultz are owners of real property and businesses located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Development. 10. All of the above captioned Petitioners and the proposed Developer obtain access (ingress/egress/regress) to their property from U.S. Route 11 (Harrisburg Pike) by virtue of a cuI de sac known as Shady Lane. 11. The determination of this I,and Use Appeal may adversely affect legally enforceable interests of the Petitioners. 12. Petitioners are permitted to intervene in the Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 2327(4). 13. If permitted to intervene, the Petitioners will urge that the Decision of the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors be affirmed. 14. The interests of the Petitioners are not adequately represented by Middlesex Township. Although the Petitioners support the Decision of the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors, said Decision failed to state all reasons for which the Board of Supervisors should have denied approval of the Plan for failure to comply with the specific provisions of the Middlesex Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Middlesex Township Zoning Ordinance, and/or the MPC. 15. The law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires that in order to obtain approval of a Subdivision and/or Land Development plan all specific requirements of the applicable Ordinances and MPC must be complied with. 16. Petitioners believe and therefore aver the Plan filed by the Appellant fails to meet the requirements stated in the Written Decision and other requirements of the Subdivision and Land Development and Zoning Ordinances and the MPC not stated in the Written Decision. 17. Should the reasons stated in the Middlesex Township Board of Supervisors written Decision of January 18, 1999 be determined by the Court to be insufficient to constitute ? reason for denial of approval of the proposed Subdivision and Land Development Plan, in order to protect the interests of the Petitioners herein, above stated, the Court may and should consider the additional deficiencies in the aforesaid Plan as set forth by the Petitioners. 18. The additional deficiencies and/or failures to comply with the applicable Ordinances and/or the MPC in regard to the aforesaid Plan which Petitioners wish to submit to the Court for its consideration are fully set forth in the text and Exhibits of the Precautionary Appeal filed by the Intervenors herein, captioned Lynn D. Hoffman, Robert C. Foltz, Jr., Curtis M. Barnett, and Richard J. Shultz, Appellants vs. Triple Crown Corporation, Inc. and Middlesex Township, Appellees, to No. 99- 739 Civil Term in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,