SCHULTHEIS v. SUP'RS OF UPPER BERN

2 Citing cases

  1. Domagalski v. Szilli

    812 A.2d 747 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2002)   Cited 9 times
    In Domagalski, after a property owner's variance application was initially granted by the local zoning hearing board, adjacent landowners appealed.

    Objectors argue that if their appeal is denied, the issue presented will ultimately evade our review. They rely on Schultheis v. Bd. of Supervisors of Upper Bern Township, 727 A.2d 145 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999). Pa. R.A.P. 311(f)(2) provides that an appeal may be taken as of right from a trial court's order remanding a matter to an administrative agency if it decides an issue that would ultimately evade appellate review if immediate appeal is not permitted. Pa. R.A.P. 311(f)(2).

  2. Caco Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township

    845 A.2d 991 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2004)   Cited 24 times
    In CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa.Cmwlth.), petition for allowance of appeal denied,580 Pa. 707, 860 A.2d 491 (2004), this court addressed the status of a comprehensive plan in reviewing a lower court's disapproval of a preliminary land development plan.

    Consequently, even where the preliminary plan fails to comply with the objective, substantive requirements, the governing body may in its discretion either reject the plan outright or grant conditional approval. Schultheis v. Board of Supervisors of Upper Bern Township, 727 A.2d 145 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999). Further, the preliminary plan containing minor defects correctable by amendment must be approved subject to a condition that necessary corrections be made. Shelbourne Square Assoc. v. Board of Supervisors of Township of Exeter, 794 A.2d 946 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002), appeal denied, 572 Pa. 727, 814 A.2d 679 (2002).