Appeal of Ralph W. Connely, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Union Run Corp. v. L. Paxton T.B. of S

    416 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    That description obviously was a statement of intent quite general in its nature. Judge Dowling was correct in considering the case to be controlled by Appeal of Ralph W. Connelly, Inc., 19 Pa. Commw. 110, 340 A.2d 597 (1975) because we there characterized plans and other materials as "an indispensable part" of a curative amendment proceeding and held that a "mere statement of intent to develop" is not sufficient to give a landowner standing under MPC ยง 1004. 19 Pa. Commw. at 115, 340 A.2d at 600. We cannot agree with owner's contention that the MPC merely requires that the governing body have "reasonable notice" of the development and a "sufficient basis" for evaluating the challenged ordinance; the cited subsection of the MPC plainly calls for "plans and other materials" to provide that reasonable notice and sufficient basis.

  2. Allegheny Energy Supply Co. v. Blaine

    829 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2003)   Cited 10 times
    Rejecting challenger's argument that public notice of curative amendment hearing was insufficient under Section 610 where notice set forth date and time of hearing as well as title and description of amendment along with statement as to where full text of amendment could be found

    Id. However, the court ruled that the Millers, having testified to nothing more than their intent to develop at a density of five to six residential units per acre, failed to provide sufficient supplementary information establishing anything more than mere intent to develop at some time in the future. Id. See also Connelly, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Highland Township, 340 A.2d 597 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1975) (stating that "[a] mere statement of intent to develop at some time in the future is not sufficient to give a landowner standing under section 1004"). In the present case, Allegheny Energy's plans and explanatory materials in conjunction with the more detailed information provided during the hearing amount to far more than the meager presentation found inadequate in Miller.

  3. Winston Corp. v. Board of Supervisors

    489 A.2d 303 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    (Emphasis added.) Judge KRAMER's statement in Connelly, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Highland Township, 19 Pa. Commw. 110, 115, 340 A.2d 597, 600 (1975), is exactly descriptive of the land and its application to the facts here: It is quite clear to us that the legislative intent involved in section 1004(2)(c) requires, as an indispensable part of this entire proceeding, plans and other materials describing the use or development proposed by the landowner, so that the governing body (and ultimately the court) will be able to consider the merits of a specific proposed use or development in relation to the allegedly defective ordinance.

  4. Miller Appeal

    487 A.2d 448 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    Nevertheless, we find that we need not reach the constitutional issue with respect to this particular ordinance since the dismissal of Owners' claim must be affirmed on procedural grounds. As both the Township and the common pleas court correctly found, Owners' failed to submit the plans and materials required of them under Section 1004(2)(c) of the M.P.C.Union Run Corp. v. Lower Paxton Township Board of Supervisors, 53 Pa. Commw. 89, 416 A.2d 1157 (1980); Appeal of Ralph W. Connelly, Inc., 19 Pa. Commw. 110, 340 A.2d 597 (1975). Section 1004(2)(c) provides, in pertinent part:

  5. Greene Landfill, Inc. v. Greene T.Z.H.B

    407 A.2d 903 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Subsection (2)(c) of that section makes it clear that a pending application is not required for such a validity appeal to the board; only plans describing the use proposed, sufficiently for the valuation of the challenge, are mandated by the law. Appeal of Ralph W. Connelly, Inc., 19 Pa. Commw. 110, 340 A.2d 597 (1975). Despite the absence of necessity for an application in a validity proceeding, and even if a fuller record here would have confirmed that sufficient descriptive plans had been filed, we affirm the lower court's dismissal, rather than remand, because, as noted above, the essential components of Landfill's filing with the zoning hearing board labeled it as an appeal from the zoning officer.

  6. H K Materials, Inc. Appeal

    403 A.2d 134 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    Section 1010 of the MPC, 53 P. S. ยง 11010, provides that appeals to the Court pursuant to Section 1004 shall not be remanded for further hearings to, inter alia, the Zoning Hearing Board. In Connelly v. Board of Supervisors of Highland Township, 19 Pa. Commw. 110, 340 A.2d 597 (1975), the owners of 52 acres of land located in a rural township challenged lot size and lot width requirements of the township Zoning Ordinance applicable to the zoning district where their lands were located. No plans or other materials were filed with the governing body to whom the challenge was made. The landowners' description of their proposal, should the ordinance be struck down, consisted of the testimony of one of the owners that it was intended to subdivide the land into residential lots of at least one acre.

  7. Hammermill Paper Co. v. Greene Township

    394 A.2d 618 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)   Cited 8 times

    This would satisfy MPC, Sec. 1004(2)(c), 53 P. S. 11004(2)(c). See Connelly v. Bd. of Supervisors of Highland Township, 19 Pa. Commw. 110, 340 A.2d 597 (1975). 11. The industrial district of Greene Township within which a solid waste landfill is a conditional use consists of 156 acres near the northern boundary of the township . . ., out of a total township acreage of approximately 24,448 acres.