HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-5536
O
RY
2G~ZSEP -b p~ ~
cc~MeE~~.Ar~Q eou~~-Y
~'ENfi1SYLVt~tr'!a
LEXINGTON LAND DEVELOPERS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CORP. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Appellant
v. Docket No. l~- 6 C~C~~ L ~n"'~
S5~
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA,
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Appellee LAND USE APPEAL
NOTICE OF LAND USE APPEAL
AND NOW comes Appellant, Lexington Land Developers Corp., by and througlh
its attorneys, Wix, Wenger & Weidner, and files this Land Use Appeal, and in support'
thereof, aver as follows:
1. This appeal is filed pursuant to Article X - A of the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. §11001-A, et seq. (the "MPC").
2. Appellant is Lexington Land Developers Corp. ("Lexington"), the owner 4f
the property which is the subject of this appeal, located along Petersburg Road, South
Middleton Township (the "Township"), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter
referred to as the "Property"). ~ /~.3. ? S
c~ Qtr
,~~a~oa q ?
_
3. Appellee is the South Middleton Township Board of Supervisors
("Appellee"), with offices located at 520 Park Drive, Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania,
17007.
4. The Property consists of approximately 70 acres and is Cumberland
County Tax Parcel Number 40-09-0531-081.
5. On or about August 25, 2009, Lexington filed a Preliminary Subdivision
Plan for a subdivision to be known as Morgan's Crossing (the "Plan") with the Townshlip.
Many modifications to the Plan have been submitted since that time by Lexington. Thje
last revision of the Plan is dated July 12, 2012, with additional revisions proposed aftelr
that date.
6. Prior to submitting the Plan, Lexington obtained conditional use approval
for the project from Appellee.
7. The Township Planning Commission recommended approval of the PIar7
on February 16, 2010.
8. By letter dated July 26, 2012, Lexington requested a waiver from Sections
710 c. 4. ii. and 710 c. 4. c.x. of the Township's Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance ("SALDO"). Notes on the Plan requested additional waivers from the SALDIO.
9. Lexington also submitted a letter dated July 26, 2012, granting the
Township additional time to review and act on the Plan, which extension letter was
substantially identical to many letters submitted previously by Lexington and routinely',
2
i ~ ~
~ S
accepted by the Township. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and is marked
Exhibit "A".
10. At the Township meeting of July 26, 2012, Appellee inexplicably denied
the waivers, refused the extension letter, and then rejected the Plan.
11. By letter dated August 7, 2012, Appellee's solicitor provided Lexington a!
written notice of denial (the "Decision"), notifying Lexington that the Appellee denied
Lexington's Plan at a meeting held on July 26, 2012. A copy of the Decision is attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference.
12. This appeal follows the Appellee's denial of Lexington's Plan.
13. The Decision provided four specific reasons for denying Lexington's Plash:
a. Failure to submit a [Sewage] Planning Module.
b. Failure to provide sidewalks along Petersburg Road.
c. The use of stormwater management practices that are prohibited',
by the [SALDO].
d. Failure to upgrade the existing road to standards applicable to nerve
roads.
14. The Decision does not state whether the Appellee acted on the waiver
requests from the Township's SALDO.
15. Appellee's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and constituted an abuse of
discretion and error of law for the following reasons:
3
a. Reason 1 identified in the Decision relates to an approval by an
outside agency, the South Middleton Township Municipal Authority
("SMTMA"), which is not an appropriate reason to deny a Plan.
b. Additionally, the Sewage Planning Module (Reason 1) was
completed by Lexington's Engineer and submitted to SMTMA an~
Carlisle Borough Authority. The Sewage Planning Module could
not be acted upon by the SMTMA because Appellee had not
provided sewage flow information to the Carlisle Borough Authori~y
that was necessary to complete an Intermunicipal Agreement
between Appellee and other municipalities. The Township
engineer confirmed this situation by email dated January 3, 2012,] a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The Intermunicip~al
Agreement was not completed as of July 26, 2012. Thus, Appellee
prevented Lexington from obtaining the required final Module input
from SMTMA to enable the Township to consider the adoption of
the required Sewage Module.
c. Reasons 2, 3 and 4 were all the subject of waiver requests. The
Decision does not state whether Appellee acted on the waiver
requests prior to taking action on the Plan.
d. To the extent that the Appellee acted upon and denied the waiver
requests at the July 26, 2012 meeting, the Appellee failed to
4
_ ~
provide Lexington with an opportunity to revise the Plan, in spite of
the fact that Lexington had submitted a written extension of time.
e. The Township Planning Commission recommended approval of
Reasons 2 and 4, and Lexington's engineer had included langua~e
on the Plan in support of the waiver requests as suggested by the
Township engineer. Further, the Plan provided that these items
would be constructed in the future upon the direction of the
Township, again as suggested by the Township engineer.
f. Reason 3 cited by the Appellee is inconsistent with the facts.
Lexington submitted a waiver request at the request of the
Township Board of Supervisors in an attempt to assist the
i
Township with a problem that the Township was having elsewhere
in the Township. However, Lexington had not withdrawn the prio
plan as required by § 504 of the SALDO. When approval of the
waivers became an issue, Lexington withdrew the waiver request~at
the July 26, 2012 meeting and asked Appellee to consider the plan
in the possession of Appellee that did not require the waiver and j
i
that met the requirements of the SALDO. The Township p engineer
had previously determined that the stormwater plan was consistent
with Township ordinances. A copy of the Township engineer's
letter dated March 12, 2010 is attached hereto as Exhibit °D".
5
T ~
g. Appellee ignored substantial evidence provided by Lexington in
support of the waiver requests, and then denied the waiver
requests without allowing Lexington to revise the Plan to meet the
SALDO.
h. Lexington's sewer engineer had proposed a solution to the SMTII~IA
to the pump station concern cited as the SMTMA June 30, 2010
letter. The SMTMA is an outside agency and the Appellee should
have made compliance a condition of Plan approval, or made thee,
approval a condition of the final plan, rather than a reason for
denial.
i. Reasons 1 - 4 of the Decision were minor matters that should hake
been made conditions of Plan approval rather than reasons for
denial, particularly as the Appellee failed to provide Lexington witlh
time to revise the Plan after denying the waivers, refusing to gram
the time extension, and as Appellee was responsible for Reason ~ .
j. Reasons 2 and 4 are contrary to the approved conditional use as'.
Lexington agreed with the Township as a condition of said approval
to pay the Township a $500.00 fee for each tot to be used for
infrastructure improvements as the Township chose, which was
confirmed in a Plan note. This contribution was understood by the
Township and Lexington to be in lieu of any other infrastructure
6
r _ _ _ _ _ __T i . ~ , .
improvements. The Appellee's denial of the Plan for Reasons 2
and 4 is evidence of Appellee's bad faith.
k. On July 23, 2012, the Township engineer recommended in writin~
that the Plan be approved subject to the conditions pending
approval of the modification requests. Thus, Lexington had every)
reason to believe that the Plan would be conditionally approved o~
July 26, 2012.
I. The Township Board of Supervisors advised Lexington's engineer
at its meeting of June 14, 2012 that the Board would grant future
extensions provided that Lexington was working with the Townsh~p
to make enforcement of impervious coverage assumptions easier in
the future. Lexington's engineer in fact worked with the Township
engineer, who advised in a memo dated July 23, 2012 that "the
Plan should be APPROVED SUBJECT TO ABOVE CONDITIONS,
pending approval of the modification requests." The Township
engineer gave no indication that the modification requests (waivers)
would be denied.
m. The Appellee's decisions in refusing to grant the waivers and in
denying the Plan were made in bad faith and were arbitrary and
capricious, contrary to Appellee's obligation to act in good faith.
7
WHEREFORE, because Appellee acted arbitrarily and capriciously, committed
an abuse of discretion and error of law in denying Lexington's Plan, and acted in bath,
faith, Lexington respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order directin~
Appellee to approve Lexington's Plan and granting such other further relief as this I'
Honorable Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Wix, Wenger & Weidner
Date: September , 2012 By:
David R. Getz, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No.: 34838
Post Office Box 845
508 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845
(717) 234-4182
Attorneys for Appellant,
Lexington Land Developers Corp.
•
a
ti
m
ti s ~_,~c '
m ceruned Fee \0
~ Postmark
~ (
~ M
~ Here
O
0' (F_rWoreemeMRequrylred)
m
~ Total Postage 9 Fees
~
- ar ~ /7DIo
. ~P~ ~ n
_ _ . _ ' w.
EXHIBIT "A"
1OHNSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
July 26, 2012
South Middleton Twp. Supervisors
520 Park Drive
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
RE: Morgan's Crossing Preliminary Subdivision Plan
Dear Supervisors:
As acting consulting engineer to our client,. Lexington Land'
Developers Corp. we hereby formally grant an additional
extension of time to your board until August 24, 2012 to act on
the above referenced plan.
This extension of time is necessary to investigate stormwater',
management alternatives for increased impervious coverage on lots'
as discussed with the Board.
If you should have any questions or problems regarding this
transmittal, please contact me at Phone 717-793-9595.
Sincerely,
Eric Johnston, P.E.
2386 Taxville Road -York, PA 17408 -FAX (717}793-9595
_ _ r _ . F.
EXHIBIT "B"
i , ,
Law Office of
Richard P. Mislitsky
One West High Street
PO Box 1290
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
717.241.6363
717.249.7073 fax
Richard P. Mislitsky Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire?
Daniel J. Menniti, Esquire' Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
August 7, 2012
i~ia first-class certified mail and
jax
Mr. Philip Garland Mr. Eric Johnston, PE
Lexington Land Developers Corporation Johnston & Associates
336 West King Street 2386 Taxville Road
Lancaster, PA 17603 York, PA 17408
Mr. Bill Bashore
Lexington Land Developers Corporation
336 West King Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
RE: Morgan's Crossing -Preliminary Subdivision
South Middleton Township Plan No. 2009-0024
Gentlemen:
This letter is being sent as written notice of the denial of Subdivision Plan No. 2009-0024 as well
as reasons thereof. This letter is intended to satisfy §508 of the Municipalities Planning Cody
and §504 d. of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. If you disagree with the
decision and/or reasons contained herein, you have the right to appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas.
I. Introduction
At their meeting on July 26, 2012, the Board of Supervisors unanimously denied you~+
Preliminary Subdivision Plan for multiple reasons. The deficiencies include violations of the
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO).
Section 504 d. (2) of the Subdivision and Land Development requires that the Board off'
Supervisors determine whether a plan meets the objectives and requirements of said ordinance'
and other ordinances of the Township. 1
~ e
Section 105 a. of the Subdivision and Land Development demands the Board accept nothing
short of "strict" compliance with the Ordinance.
Section 507 of the Municipalities Planning Code prohibits subdivision and land development
except in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision and Land Development
Ordinance.
It is within these parameters that the Board of Supervisors has reviewed and rejected your
Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The specific deficiencies are outlined below. Any one of the
following reasons is individually and independently a basis for rejection of your Preliminary
Subdivision Plan.
II. Reasons for Denial
1. Failure to submit a Planning Module
Section 502 b. of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance requires submission of
Sewage Planning Module with the Preliminary Plan. No Module was submitted. Tht
governing body is aware of and points to the reason(s) why §502 (b) was not addressed in the
development plans submitted for consideration.
Your representatives requested sewer capacity from the South Middleton Township Sewet
Authority (SMTMA). In a letter dated June 30, 2010, Robert Kissinger indicates that
Pumping Station No. 4 will "need to upgraded/expanded in order to accept the flows from this
development." Furthermore, the "flows to be generated exceed the SMTMA allocation at
Carlisle Point of Connection 2B, York Road." In addition, an "amendment to thtr
Intermunicipal Agreement will be required to reapportion the allocations at the various points
of connection with the Borough before flows from this development are accepted."
It is obvious that the work and costs necessary to properly convey and treat waste water from
the development under consideration not only explains the failure to comply with §502 (b)ti
but also the numerous time extensions required in the matter at hand. It is puzzling why
preliminary plan approval was expected, or even requested, when waste water can neither b~
conveyed for treatment, nor treated, even if conveyance were possible. The Board of
Supervisors believes that it would be inexcusable to ignore this significant issue and approve
the instant proposal as it exists.
Since there was no Planning Module submitted, your plan does not adequately address th@
issue of sewage capacity, upgrading the pump station, or whether the Borough of Cazlisl~
would even accept your flows. None of these concerns have been addressed by you#
submission.
2. Failure to provide sidewalks along Petersburg Road
Section 707 of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance requires the design and
installation of sidewalks in all subdivisions in the RH zoning district. This project is within
2
the RH District. The plans being considered do not include sidewalks along Petersburg Road.
As such, your plans do not comply with this Section of the Ordinance.
3. The use of stormwater management practices that are prohibited by the Ordinance.
The location of the proposed development has an underlying limestone geology and limestone
soils. This is verified in the EIA submitted in support of the application. Reference can also
be made to The Cumberland County Soil Survey cited in your EIA.
It is well established that limestone geology is characterized by such features as tracturesy
fissures, and sinkholes. It is equally well established that sinkholes in such areas are often the
result of surface water infiltration. These characteristics, combined with past experience with
development, caused South Middleton Township to adopt specific criteria for land
development in areas of limestone geology.
Section 710 c. (4) (a) (iii) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance states:
In areas underlain by limestone, BMPs for infiltration shall be designed to simulate the
natural infiltration rate of the site prior to development. Dry wells and infiltration trenches
shall be prohibited in limestone areas. (Emphasis added).
And, Section 710 c. (4) (c) (x) states:
Subsurface infiltration facilities designed for runoff peak attenuation shall be allowed o
after all other alternatives have been explored and
found not to be practical for the proposed
subdivision or land development. Lack of sufficient area to install other alternatives shall not
be an acceptable reason,for allowing infiltration facilities. {Emphasis added).
Your plan calls for the use of on-lot "seepage beds". These types of facilities are specifically
prohibited within areas underlain by limestone. [§710 c. (4) (a) (iii)]
Similarly, the plans submitted in support of this proposed development do not demonstrate
that any alternative designs for stormwater management were considered, clearly, the
applicant has not proved that "...ALL other alternatives have been explored and found not to
be practical for the proposed land development" (emphasis added). Moreover, at no time
during discussions with and review of the plans by The Board of Supervisors, did the
applicant discuss any alternative proposals, other than the on-lot seepage beds which are
prohibited.
4. Failure to upgrade the existing road to standards applicable to new roads
In cases where a subdivision proposes access of a new street onto an existing Township Road;
§716 b. (6} of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance requires that the developer
shall upgrade the existing road to standards applicable to new township roads, including
stormwater collection and conveyance facilities.
3
_ ~ s
Your plans call for ingress/egress via a new street intersecting Petersburg Road. The land
development plans submitted for consideration and approval do not provide for the upgrade of
the road to Township standards. To the contrary, the governing body was asked to ignore the
requirement set forth in §716 (b) (6). The Board of Supervisors could not ignore this
requirement and denied your request.
III. Conclusion
The Board finds that your Preliminary Subdivision Plan violates numerous provisions of the
Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. The Board believes it must, therefore, deny
your request for the reasons stated herein.
Sincerely,
/s/Richard P. Mis[itsky
Richard P. Mislitsky
RPM/jcs
cc: South Middleton Township Boadd of Supervisors -via email only
South Middleton Township Staff -via email only
' Of Counsel • Practices independently as Daniel J. Menniti, Esquire
: Uf Counsel -Practices independently as Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
' Of Counsel -Practices independently as Christian Lawyers Solutions, LLC
4
- _ _ _ ~
EXHIBIT "C"
Page 1 of 2
Johnston Associates, Inc.
From: "Brian P. O'Neill" <engineer~smiddleton.com>
To: "Johnston and Associates, Inc." <johnston7@comcast.net>
Cc: "Phil Garland" <devprg~comcast.net>; "Timothy D. Duerr" <zoning~smiddleton.com>; "Barbara A.
Wilson" <manager~smiddleton.com>; "Sandra A. Cluickel° <secretary@smiddleton.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: Morgan's Crossing
Eric,
As ? recall, the plans were not addressed at the Board level because a revision to the inter-municipal
sewage agreement between Carlisle & South Middleton is required due to the increased flows through
this pump station to Carlisle. This, and not the agreement between the developers, was the reason the
Morgan's Crossing project was stalled.
In addition, 1 believe the issue with the E-Free church access was not worked out and the Board wanted
something definitive on that.
Also, the developer's agreement was to address the whole access between the plans and Jefferson
Court not being able to construct Phase 2 until Wlorgan's went in. Just trying to refresh my memory on
these issues and remember why this stalled. I'm sure Rich will want to review the agreement.
let me know where these issues stand and how you want to proceed with the plans. If we can't get
these addressed by Jan 19th, we may need a time extension.
Brian O'Neill
From: Johnston and Associates, Inc. {mailto:johnston7@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 9:22 AM
To: Brian P. O'Neill
Cc: Phil Garland
Subject: Morgan's Crossing
Brian,
Hope all is well and you had a nice Christmas I
Regarding Jim Hughes' email on 12113/11, we do anticipate the transmittal of
a signed agreement to the Township between the developers within the next 2 weeks.
You probably recall that this is the last thing required before going to the Supervisors
far Preliminary Plan approval (It has already received a recommendation for approval
by the Planning Commission.
Do you we suggest that we submit a time extension and/or can the plan tentatively be
placed on the January Supervisor's agenda for approval consideration in anticipation
that the signed agreemen# will be submitted and reviewed by your solicitor
prior to that meeting.
Wait to hear from you.
8/30/2412
i ~
. t
EXHIBIT "D"
w
Serving our Community with Pride
March 12, 2010
Johnston & Associates, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Kent Raffensberger
2386 Taxville Road _ss°'
York, Pa. 1740$ ~
RE: Morgan's Cro g;tan 2009-00~-..x _
Stormwater ~irhet~# Consistency - ~ _
~ ~
Dear Mr. Rafffensb } K~ ~ _
y x. 4 . >s., ,
In response to you ~ ; en ?~t~ ' ~ referenced projects I offer
the following. ~ ~ x
~ t R ` ovisions of our T nship
The project is coistent wlth #~e ' :gam,
5`
Ordinances. There ~s no Act 167 Plsn ~ ~ ~ ~ h the project is loca ed.
~t ~
if you have any qu t!orts ~p~~ _ ~r~r Office.
_ - ~
Sincerely, ~ ~ r
. ~ ~ ~ ~
* Lp : 3
Brian P. O Neill, P. , ~ ~ k
~ ,R;
Township Engineer ~ u ~ .
Cc: Plan file #200 0~2Q='~ -M~~~`~~
~
t-
520 Park Drive ~ Boiling Springs, PA 17007 ~ ~ 717.258.5324 ~ p 717.258.3577 Monday -Friday 7:30am = 4OO~m
www.smiddleton.com
'L _ -
, r ~
LEXINGTON LAND DEVELOPERS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CORP., OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Appellant
v. Docket No.
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA,
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Appellee LAND USE APPEAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Land Use
Appeal via first class, U.S. mail postage prepaid on the following:
South Middleton Township Board of Supervisors
520 Park Drive '
Boiling springs, PA 17007
Richard P. Mislitsky, Esquire
One West High Street '
Post Office Box 1290
Carlisle, PA 17013
Wix, Wenger & Weidner
Date: September 2012 By: -
avid R. Getz, Esquir
Attorney I.D. No.: 34838
Post Office Box 845
508 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845
(717) 234-4182
F:\drg\3046 - GCI Building & Development Corp\13674 -South Middleton Township - Morgan's CrossinglDocuments\Land Use
Appeal 9.6.12.doc 9/6!12
_ r. F
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
LEXINGTON LAND DEVELOPERS
CORP.
Vs. No. 12-5536 CIVIL TERM
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
TO: SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between
LEXINGTON LAND DEVELOPERS CORP. vs SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA, pending before
you, do command 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 (20) 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 KEVIN A. HESS, PJ our said Court, at Carlisle, PA., the
6TH day of SEPTEMBER 2012.
David D. Buell, Prothonotary
LEXINGTON LAND DEVELOPERS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CORP. : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Appellant :
V. : Docket No. 2012-5536 Civil
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP :
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA, w
CIVIL ACTION - LAW rry
Appellee : LAND USE APPEAL
9z cn a d
-cep
JOINT MOTION FOR REMAND
c
Lexington Land Developers Corp. ("Lexington"), by and through its attorneys,
Wix, Wenger Weidner, P.C. and the South Middletown Township Board of Supervisors
(the "Board"), by and through its Solicitor, Richard P. Mislitsky, Esq., hereby
respectfully and jointly move this Court to remand the Preliminary Plan for Morgan's
Crossing, currently before the Court on appeal (the "Plan"), to the South Middleton
Township Board of Supervisors for further consideration and in support thereof, aver as
follows:
1. The Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction over this
matter by virtue of the relevant section of the Pennsylvania Municipalities
Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 11002-A(a).
2. During its meeting on July 26, 2012, the Board denied the Plan and issued a
written decision of such denial on August 7, 2012 (the "Decision").
3. Lexington appealed the Decision to this Honorable Court on September 6,
2012 (the "Appeal").
4. Lexington' appeal of the Decision is the only issue before the Court in the
Appeal.
5. Since filing the Appeal, Lexington and the representatives of the Board have
met to discuss ways to change or modify the Plan for it to be approved by the
Board.
6. The Parties are hopeful that upon a remand of the Plan to the Board for
further consideration, the various technical issues that prompted the Board's
Decision can be addressed to the satisfaction of both Parties.
7. Upon remand, should either Party become dissatisfied with the progress of
the reconsideration of the Plan by the other Party, either Party may have the
Appeal reinstated upon motion to the Court.
8. Lexington waives any claim of deemed approval under 53 P.S. § 10508
before the date of remand. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the remand
order by the Court, the Township shall review and render a decision on the
Plan, under penalty of the deemed approval provisions of 53 P.S. §10508(3),
subject to such extensions of time as may be granted by Lexington.
9. Should the Plan (as it may be amended as a result of the remand) be
approved by the Board, Lexington will promptly withdraw the Appeal after the
expiration of any appeal period from the approval by the Board.
10.For judicial economy, the Court may wish to consider a joint hearing on this
matter along with Docket No. 2012-5537 Civil (Residential Homes Company
General Partnership v. South Middleton Township Board of Supervisors).
The two dockets involve similar issues, parties, and motions to this Court.
WHEREFORE, the Appellant Lexington and Appellee Board jointly request
that this Honorable Court remand the Preliminary Plan of Morgan's Crossing to the
South Middleton Township Board of Supervisors for further consideration of the
Plan, and for its possible approval of the Plan as it may be amended by agreement
of the Parties.
Respectfully submitted,
By. rig
e. h;
By.
Ric and P. Mislits , Esquire David R. Getz, Esquire
Attorney 1D No. 28123 Attorney ID No. 34838
1 West High Street, Suite 208 Wix, Wenger &Weidner
P.O. Box 1290 Post Office Box 845
Carlisle, PA 17013 508 North Second Street
(717) 241-6363 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845
Solicitor to Appellee, South Middleton Attorneys for Appellant,
Township Board of Supervisors Lexington Land Developers Corp.
Date: March t3 , 2013
F:1drg\3046-GCI Building&Development Corp\13674-South Middleton Township-Morgan's Crossing\Documentsl.,ioint Motion
for Remand Morgan's Crossing 3.13.13.docx 3/13/13
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING
SCHEDULING OF HEARING
James D. Hughes, Esq.
Kurt E. Williams, Esq.
Salzmann Hughes, PC
354 Alexander Spring Road
Carlisle, PA 17015
Counsel for Residential Homes
Richard P. Mislitsky, Esq.
1 W. High Street, Suite 208
PO Box 1290
Carlisle, PA 17013
Solicitor to South Middleton Township
David R. Getz, Esq.
Wix, Wenger& Weidner, P.C.
508 North Second Street
P.O. Box 845
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0845
Counsel for Lexington Land Developers, Inc.
s
LEXINGTON LAND DEVELOPERS IN THE COURT OF COON PLEAS
CORP. OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
Appellant
V. Docket No. 2012-5536 Civil 2 {
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP -
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, _ '
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA r-G- N x°
CIVIL ACTION - LAW Z °`r�
Appellee LAND USE APPEAL p a?
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of 2013, upon
consideration of the Joint Motion for Remand filed b�both parties and upon
representations of counsel for the parties, it is ordered that:
1. The Preliminary Plan of Morgan's Crossing that is the subject of the instant
appeal (the "Plan"), is hereby remanded to the South Middleton Township
Board of Supervisors (the "Board")for further consideration, review of
technical matters and possible approval.
2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to §1006-A of the
Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
3. Should the parties fail to resolve the outstanding issues regarding the Plan on
remand, either party may reinstate the appeal upon motion to the Court.
BY THE COURT:
J.
b- 14u
I
i
i
e, P rn.<l 1