Gaughen LLC v. Borough Council of Borough of Mechanicsburg

128 A.3d 355 (2015)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gaughen LLC v. Borough Council of Borough of Mechanicsburg

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
128 A.3d 355 (2015)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Gaughen LLC (plaintiff) sought approval for the development of an apartment complex under the Mechanicsburg Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (subdivision ordinance). The subdivision ordinance provided that no application would be considered filed unless it conformed to the ordinance’s requirements and that an application’s acceptance did not waive the requirement that the application conform to the entire ordinance. The ordinance also provided that the failure of the Borough Council of the Borough of Mechanicsburg (council) (defendant) to act on the submission of a land-development plan within 90 days would constitute automatic approval. Gaughen submitted its land-development plan to Mechanicsburg on November 26, 2008. On December 10, Mechanicsburg’s engineer issued a memorandum indicating that Gaughen’s plan did not comply with several ordinances, including the subdivision ordinance. The same day, the Mechanicsburg Planning Commission (commission) discussed Gaughen’s plan at a regular meeting. The commission asked Gaughen if it wanted to withdraw its plan, but Gaughen declined and never submitted a revised plan. The 90-day period from Gaughen’s initial submission ended on February 24, 2009, and the council had neither acted on Gaughen’s application nor notified Gaughen that it considered its application to be incomplete or not properly filed. On February 25, Gaughen’s engineer provided the council with an extension of time to June 10. On June 9, the council notified Gaughen that it had denied Gaughen’s plan because the plan did not comply with several ordinances. Gaughen filed a mandamus action with the trial court for deemed approval because the council failed to act within 90 days of the plan’s submission. The trial court ruled that the plan was never validly filed because it did not comply with the subdivision ordinance. Gaughen appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Colins, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 783,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership