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…
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.