Before this Court, Appellant argues that the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion when it affirmed Appellee’s denial of Appellant’s Sketch Plan based, in part, on the determination that the Sketch Plan does not comply with Section 135-24(D)(3) of the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO)1 because Appellant failed to justify the 1 Section 135-24(D)(3) of the SALDO reads: proposed partial rear demolition of 38 West Lancaster Avenue, Ardmore, Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania (Subject Property). ANDREW CROMPTON, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE CROMPTON FILED: DecemFreedom Ardmore LP (Appellant) appeals the FebruOrder of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) affirming the Lower Merion Township Board of Commissioners’ (Appellee) denial of Appellant’s mandatory sketch plan (Sketch Plan). 2021 : Argued: Novem: : HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge HONORABLE J. Lower Merion Township Board of Commissioners BEFORE: : : : : No. IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Freedom Ardmore LP, Appellant v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |