IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mar-Del Holdings, LLC, :

: No. 1228 C.D. 2015

Appellant : Argued: March 7, 2016

:

v. :

:

Orange Township Board of Supervisors :

:

v. :

:

Mark Acker, Donna Acker, Morgan :

Barclay, Mary Barclay, Steve Beyer, :

Cindy Beyer, Patricia Brewster, Robert :

Brewster, Fred Brockway, Jan Brockway, :

Marty Chamberlain, Gail Chamberlain, :

John J. D’Orazio, Barbara D’Orazio, :

John D’Orazio, Pam D’Orazio, Susan B. :

Fetterman, Dan Fetterman, Nathaniel :

Flook, Sherry Flook, Charles Fritz, :

Jennifer Fritz, Susan Hales, Gary Hess, :

Penny Hess, Corey Hughes, Madeleine :

Hughes, Ronald Hunter, Janet Hunter, :

John Katch, Jennifer Thomas, George :

Larson, Nancy Larson, Jayleen Miller, :

Eric Ortuba, Amanda Ortuba, Larry :

Recla, Carrie Recla, Anthony Reed, :

Cathy Reed, Gregory Sherman, Joyce :

Sherman, Andrew Smith, Christine Smith, :

Eric Sorg, Erin Sorg, and Matthew :

Swinehart :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: May12, 2016
Mar-Del Holdings, LLC (Landowner) appeals the order of the Court 

of Common Pleas of the 26th Judicial District (Columbia County Branch) (trial 

court) affirming the Orange Township (Township) Board of Supervisors’ (Board) 

decision that denied Landowner’s conditional use application1to construct a 

 

1

Section 603(c)(2) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), Act of July 31, 1968, 

P.L. 805, as amended, 53 P.S. §10603(c)(2) states, in relevant part:

Zoning ordinances may contain . . . provisions for conditional uses 

to be allowed or denied by the governing body . . . pursuant to 

express standards and criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance. . . . 

In allowing a conditional use, the governing body may attach such 

reasonable conditions and safeguards . . . in addition to those 

expressed in the ordinance, as it may deem necessary to implement 

the purposes of this act and the zoning ordinance[.]

See also Section 909.1(b)(3) of the MPC, added by the Act of December 21, 1988, as amended, 

10909.1(b)(3) (“The governing body . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and render final 

adjudications . . . [on a]pplications for conditional use under the express provisions of the zoning 

ordinance pursuant to section 603(c)(2).”); Section 913.2(a), added by the Act of December 21, 

1988, as amended, 53 P.S. §10913.2(a) (“Where a governing body, in zoning ordinances, has 

stated conditional uses to be granted or denied by the governing body pursuant to express 

standards and criteria, the governing body shall hold hearings on and decide requests for such 

conditional uses in accordance with such standards and criteria. . . . In granting a conditional use, 

the governing body may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards, in addition to those 

expressed in the ordinance, as it may deem necessary to implement the purposes of this act in the 

zoning ordinance.”).

As this Court has explained:

A conditional use is a special exception which falls within 

the jurisdiction of the municipal legislative body rather than the 

zoning hearing board. The municipal legislative body may grant a 

conditional use pursuant to express standards and criteria set forth 

in the zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to the police powers to 

regulate land use. The fact that a use is permitted as a conditional 

use, rather than prohibited, reflects a legislative decision that the 

use is not per se adverse to the public interest.

(Footnote continued on next page...)
2

campground and recreational vehicle (RV) park2on its property in the Township’s 

Rural zoning district. We affirm.

In November 2014, Landowner filed a conditional use application3

with the Board to construct a campground and RV park on its 13-acre parcel of 

 

(continued...)

In order to demonstrate that the applicant is entitled to the 

conditional use, the applicant initially bears the burden of 

establishing that the application complies with the objective 

standards and criteria of the particular ordinance. Satisfaction of 

the applicant’s burden establishes a legislative presumption that the 

use is consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the 

community. Once the applicant has satisfied this initial burden, the 

burden shifts to the objectors to rebut this presumption by 

establishing that the use will have a detrimental impact on the 

surrounding community.

In re Richboro CD Partners, L.P., 89 A.3d 742, 745 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 97 A.3d 746 

(Pa. 2014) (citations omitted).

2

Section 3.300 of the Zoning Ordinance defines “Campground or Recreational Vehicle 

(RA) Park” as “[a] plot of ground upon which two or more campsites are located, established or 

maintained for temporary occupancy by persons using tents or recreational vehicles, and which 

shall not be used for long term occupancy or residency of occupants.”

3

Section 1108.4 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth the standards and criteria required for 

the grant of a conditional use:

A. The proposed use shall be in harmony with [the] purposes, 

goals, objectives and standards of the Township Comprehensive 

Plan, this Ordinance and all other ordinances of the Township.

B. The proposal shall also be evaluated as to the degree to which 

the proposed location may be particularly suitable or unsuitable for 

the proposed use in terms of the physical characteristics of the site.

C. The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in a 

substantial or undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
3

 

(continued...)

character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, public 

improvements, public sites or rights-of-way, adjacent property 

values, or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and 

general welfare, either as they now exist or as they may in the 

future be developed as a result of the implementation of this 

Ordinance, or any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the 

Township.

D. In reviewing an application, the following additional factors 

shall be considered:

* * *

5. Adequacy of storm water and drainage facilities [and] 

storm water leaving any site shall not exceed predevelopment levels and facilities shall be designed to 

accommodate a 10 year storm.

6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.

* * *

9. Special attention to the adequacy and impact of 

structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with 

susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion.

E. No application shall be approved unless it is found that, in 

addition to complying with each of the standards enumerated 

above, any of the applicable standards contained in this Ordinance 

shall be met. 

The applicant shall supply evidence regarding compliance with the 

express standards and criteria contained herein; and data or 

evidence may be accepted from protestants. Such evidence shall 

be evaluated relative to the injurious impact on the health, safety 

and welfare of the Township; and the proposed use shall be 

approved with appropriate conditions or denied based on said 

evaluation.
4

property in the Township’s Rural zoning district. Section 404.4 of the Township’s 

Zoning Ordinance permits such a use in the zoning district as a conditional use. 

The main entrance to the park would be on Mount Pleasant Road directly across 

from Sandy Stone Drive. A private road with a 20-foot cartway would be 

constructed of stone.

Landowner intends to construct an RV park consisting of 100 units, 

each located on a 50’ by 80’ pad. The pads would be constructed of stone with a 

10’ by 20’ concrete slab.4 Some of the units would be in the floodplain and the 

remainder would be in the floodway.5 There would be a well drilled and water 

 

4

Section 3.300 of the Zoning Ordinance defines “construction” as “[t]he construction . . . 

of a building or structure . . . .” Section 1207 defines “development” as “[a]ny man-made 

change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to the construction 

. . . of buildings or other structures . . . ,” and defines a “structure” as “[a]nything constructed or 

erected on the ground or attached to the ground including, but not limited to buildings, sheds, 

manufactured homes, and other similar items.” Section 3.300 defines a “structure” as “[a]

combination of materials to form a construction for use . . . whether installed on, above, or below 

the surface of land or water,” and a “permanent structure” as “[a]nything constructed, the use of 

which requires permanent location on the ground . . . .” In light of the foregoing definitions, the 

installation of the instant concrete slabs constitutes “construction,” “development,” and 

“structure” under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. See, e.g., H.Y.K. Construction Company v. 

Zoning Hearing Board of Perkiomen Township, (Pa. Cmwlth, No. 1191 C.D. 2004, filed March 

18, 2005), slip op. at 6 (“Applying that definition here, these slabs will be mixed and poured onto 

the ground and will become permanently attached thereto for the purpose of storing HYK’s precast concrete materials in conjunction with its business. Accordingly, the concrete slabs at issue 

in this case fall well within the definition of a ‘structure’ under the Zoning Ordinance . . . .”).

5

Section 1201.1.C., and D. of the Zoning Ordinance provides that the Floodplain 

Development Standards are to “[m]inimize danger to the public health by protecting [the] water 

supply and natural drainage” and “[r]educe financial burdens imposed on the community, its 

governmental units, and its residents, by preventing excessive development in areas subject to 

flooding.” Section 1201.2 states that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person . . . or corporation to 

undertake, or cause to be undertaken, any construction or development anywhere within an 

identified floodplain area in the Township unless a permit has been issued by the Township in 

accord with this Ordinance.” Section 1202.1 states that “[p]ermits shall be required before any 

construction or development is undertaken within any identified floodplain area in the 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
5

provided to each unit. Each unit would also have a sanitary sewer hookup that 

would be attached to the plant owned by Landowner. Based on a conversation 

between Landowner and the plant operator, the sewer plant has sufficient capacity 

 

(continued...)

Township.” Section 1202.2 provides that a permit can only be issued “after it has been 

determined that the proposed work . . . will be in conformance with the requirements of this and 

all other applicable codes and ordinances,” and that no permit shall be issued until it has been 

determined that “all other necessary government permits required by State and Federal laws have 

been obtained.” Likewise, Section 1204.1.B. states that “[w]ithin any designated floodway (FW) 

area, no new construction, development, use, activity, or encroachment of any kind, shall be 

allowed, except where the effect of such proposed activity on flood heights is fully offset by 

accompanying improvements,” and that “[n]o new construction or development shall be allowed 

unless a permit is obtained from the Department of Environmental Protection [(DEP)], Bureau of 

Dams and Waterways Management [(Bureau)].”

With respect to sanitary sewer facilities within the floodplain area, Section 1204.3.C. 

states:

1. All new or replacement sanitary sewer facilities and systems, 

and private package sewage treatment plants (including all 

pumping stations and collections systems), shall be located, 

designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damages 

and the infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges 

from the systems into flood waters.

2. No part of any on-site sewage system shall be located within 

any floodplain area except in strict compliance with all state and 

local regulations for such systems. If any such system is 

permitted, it shall be located so as to avoid impairment to it, or 

contamination from it, during a flood.

Similarly, Section 1204.3.M. provides that “[w]ater supply systems and sanitary sewage systems 

shall be designed to prevent the infiltration of flood waters into the system and discharges from 

the system into flood waters.”
6

to process the sewage from the proposed RV park.6 All of the utilities would be 

placed underground.

 

6

The entirety of Landowner’s evidence regarding sewage facilities for the development 

presented to the Board at hearing is as follows: Landowner’s principal stated, in pertinent part:

There will be provided sanitary sewer. Every unit will 

have a sanitary sewer hookup, which will be – which will go to our 

plant, we own the plant, here in [the] Township to be treated . . . .

We will have to wait until we get planning approval as far 

as getting into the details about the design of the sewer line . . . .

[Board Chairman]: Question on the sewage. You’ve 

actually reviewed that with the operators of the sewer plant to 

ensure that sewer plant is adequate to support this number of units?

[Principal]: I discussed that with John.

[Board Chairman]: And what was his response?

[Principal]: He said that we were – that we were set up so 

that the material and so forth coming from this site will be 

regulated over a period of time to go to the plant to be treated.

[Board Chairman]: Okay. And we have documentation for 

that?

[Principal]: No, that was verbal from him. The only thing 

I have from the township is he told me they have – he asked me a 

question on whether we had enough capacity for the sewer and I 

said I had talked to the sewer enforcement officer for the township, 

and he had said it can work in that plant. There’s enough, yes.

Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 32a-35a.

Additionally, Landowner’s surveyor stated, in relevant part:

I’m a professional land surveyor. Part of my job would be to 

complete the land development process through the Columbia 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
7

 

(continued...)

County Planning Commission [(Planning Commission)]. So the 

reality of it right now is you’re looking at a sketch, but we are 

going to have to go through a very detailed process with the 

[Planning Commission] that is basically going to look at every 

grade.

Every site there’s certain things we have to have for each 

site. A gravel pad. Each site has to be fifty by eighty I believe 

under the county’s ordinance. They have fairly restrictive 

campground requirements in their ordinance. And so this is like 

part one of a long process.

The problem we have is if we don’t – if he doesn’t get a 

conditional use approval then we can’t really start the planning 

process, so it doesn’t make sense obviously to do that without a 

conditional use. So that’s – this is step one of a long drawn out 

process.

Sewer, you asked the question on sewer. We would have 

to do what’s called a sewage facilities planning module. Part of 

that planning module is we need a letter from the bureau stating 

that they have adequate capacity. If they don’t, we don’t get 

approval. Correct? Or at least for that many units.

[Principal]: Doesn’t have to do with the bureau. That has 

to do with –

[Surveyor]: Well, whoever’s servicing the sewer. If the 

capacity’s not there we can’t do it. And DEP will have to approve 

the module stating that there is capacity and then we can do it.

[Principal]: But until we – until this township does 

something about going to the Borough of Orangeville, our material 

will all be put into the plant and treated at that plant.

Id. at 36a-37a.
8

Thirty individuals from adjacent residential developments and 

neighbors (collectively, Objectors) appeared at the Board hearing and testified 

regarding their concerns with the proposed development. As found by the Board:

The neighbors’ concerns included the large influx of 

people from the sites wandering around the 

neighborhood, security in the neighborhood, noise, 

increased vehicular traffic, smoke from 80 to 100 

campfires, changes in the character of the neighborhood, 

the increase in the cost of the sewer plant from additional 

sewage, questions regarding the capacity of the sewage 

plant to handle the additional sewage, what type of debris 

would be carried downstream by a flood, the property is 

in the floodway and floodplain, the devaluation of 

neighboring properties, safety issues, concerns for the 

children in the area, strain on the wells, the degradation 

of the tax base from residents moving away, noise 

pollution, environmental impact to vegetation and 

wildlife, the bus stop directly across from the entrance to 

the property, litter and all-terrain vehicle noise.

R.R. at 14a. Based on its findings, the Board concluded that “[t]he testimony and 

evidence of [Landowner] was not sufficient to meet the standards and criteria for a 

conditional use in the Rural Zone pursuant to section 1108.4 of the [Township] 

Zoning Ordinance.” Id.

Landowner appealed to the trial court and Objectors intervened. 

Without receiving additional evidence, the trial court affirmed the Board’s decision 

based on the Board’s findings regarding the insufficiency of Landowner’s evidence 

regarding the Ordinance requirements for sewage disposal and development in the 

floodplain.7 Landowner then filed this appeal arguing that the Board erred in 

 

7

The trial court explained:

The . . . decision to deny the application was based on a 

number of factual findings by th[e] Board. In this opinion, 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
9

denying its conditional use application because it sustained its burden of 

compliance with the specific objective criteria of the Zoning ordinance. We do not 

agree.8

As this Court has explained:

 

(continued...)

however, only two such findings will be addressed: sewage 

disposal and flood plain. This is not to say that the other factors 

are not relevant, or that there was no substantial evidence to 

support the findings. Rather, the sewage disposal and flood plain 

issues are so fundamental that the remaining issues are minor in 

comparison.

The proposed use would involve the potential for several 

hundred people to be occupying the campground during its peak 

season. Sewage disposal, therefore, is critical. [Landowner] 

submitted no documentation as to its plan for sewage disposal. 

Rather, Landowner’s representative indicated that he had verbal 

assurance that the local sewage treatment plant had sufficient 

capacity. Although this failure may be correctible in a future 

resubmitted application, the Board was certainly justified in 

insisting on some assurance more trustworthy than glib hearsay.

As noted above, the proposed campground is in the 

floodplain and partly in the floodway. Section 1201.2 of the 

zoning ordinance requires that any proposed use or development in 

a floodway will not be allowed “unless a permit is obtained from 

the [DEP’s Bureau].” There was no evidence that such a permit 

was obtained, or even applied for.

R.R. at 179a-180a.

8

In a land use appeal where the trial court does not take additional evidence, our review 

is limited to determining whether the local governing body abused its discretion or committed an 

error of law. In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659, 666 n. 4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), appeal denied, 916 

A.2d 636 (Pa. 2007). The governing body abuses its discretion when its findings of fact are not 

supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citations omitted).
10

Ordinarily, many of the types of detail required for a 

special exception by the Ordinance here are addressed 

further along the permitting and approval process 

because zoning only regulates the use of land and not the 

particulars of development and construction.[9] But 

where more stringent requirements are part of a 

township’s special exception requirements, it is proper 

for the [Board] to consider them. Even if an applicant 

demonstrates that it can comply with the ordinance 

requirements and promises to do so, the [Board] does not 

err in denying the application. Simply put, a concept 

plan is insufficient to warrant the granting of a special 

exception; rather, to be entitled to receive a special 

exception, the applicant must come forward with 

evidence detailing its compliance with the necessary 

requirements.

Elizabethtown/Mt. Joy Associates, L.P. v. Mount Joy Township Zoning Hearing 

Board, 934 A.2d 759, 768 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), appeal denied, 953 A.2d 542 (Pa. 

2008) (citations omitted).10

As a result, while a special exception cannot be denied on the basis 

that it violates the general requirements of being against the health, welfare, and 

safety of the community due to approvals that must be obtained at a later date by a 

different agency, an application may be denied where the ordinance contains 

 

9

See, e.g., In re Appeal of Brickstone Realty Corp., 789 A.2d 333, 339 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2001), appeal denied, 806 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2002) (holding that detailed design information such as 

floor plot plans, even if required by an ordinance, is not relevant to considering a special 

exception application); Schatz v. New Britain Township Zoning Hearing Board of Adjustment, 

596 A.2d 294, 298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (holding that sewage capacity, storm water management, 

and water supply issues “are to be addressed further along in the permitting and approval 

process”).

10 The ordinance at issue in that case required applicants to demonstrate compliance with 

requirements concerning architectural style, signage, traffic and road improvements, and 

lighting. Elizabethtown/Mt. Joy Associates, L.P., 934 A.2d at 763.
11

specific requirements regarding the provision of utilities. East Manchester 

Township Zoning Hearing Board v. Dallmeyer, 609 A.2d 604, 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1992). Where an ordinance requires that all mobile homes be supplied with a 

“continuing supply of safe and potable water,” a special exception can be denied if 

the applicant fails to establish that sufficient potable water can be supplied to the 

proposed development as required. Id. See also Patullo v. Zoning Hearing Board 

of Township of Middletown, 701 A.2d 295, 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (“As the Board 

concluded, the increased flood level caused by the construction of the proposed 

garage would have the adverse effect on the public welfare and contravene the 

stated purposes of the F–2 district. Since Patullo failed to establish that his 

proposal complied with all of the required standards for granting a special 

exception, the Board’s refusal to grant a special exception was proper.”). 

As outlined above, Section 1108.4.D.6 requires the Board to consider 

the “[a]dequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities.” Additionally, 

Section 1108.4.E. of the Zoning Ordinance states, in relevant part, that “[n]o 

application shall be approved unless it is found that, in addition to complying with 

each of the standards enumerated above, any of the applicable standards 

contained in this Ordinance shall be met.” (Emphasis added).

In turn, Section 1204.1.B.1. only permits development in the 

floodway if the effect on flood heights is fully offset by improvements and the 

permits from the Township and DEP are obtained. With respect to sanitary sewer 

facilities within the flood plain area, Section 1204.3.C. states that “[a]ll new or 

replacement sanitary sewer facilities and systems, and private package sewage 

treatment plants (including all pumping stations and collections systems), shall be 

located, designed and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damages and the 
12

infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into 

flood waters;” that “[n]o part of any on-site sewage system shall be located within 

any floodplain area except in strict compliance with all state and local regulations 

for such systems;” and that “[i]f any such system is permitted, it shall be located so 

as to avoid impairment to it, or contamination from it, during a flood.” Moreover, 

Section 1202.1 of the Ordinance states that “[p]ermits shall be required before any 

construction or development is undertaken within any identified floodplain area” 

and Section 1202.2.B. provides that no permit shall be issued until “all other 

necessary government permits required by State and Federal laws have been 

obtained.”11

The only evidence that Landowner presented regarding the sewage 

disposal facilities was Principal’s uncorroborated statements that he was told by 

the operator of the facility “that we were set up so that the material and so forth 

coming from this site will be regulated over a period of time to go to the plant to be 

treated,” and that he was told by the Township’s sewer enforcement officer that “it 

can work in that plant.” R.R. at 34a, 35a. 12 With respect to the development in the 

floodway, the Notes on Landowner’s sketch plan state:

 

11 Landowner’s assertion that the trial court erred in relying on Section 1201.2 of the 

Zoning Ordinance in part is specious at best. Although the Board stated in its decision that its 

reason for denying the application was Landowner’s failure to comply with Section 1108.4, as 

outlined above, Section 1108.4.E. specifically incorporates all other applicable standards in the 

Zoning Ordinance; the Board’s decision specifically references the Objectors’ concerns 

“regarding the capacity of the sewage plant to handle the additional sewage, what type of debris 

would be carried downstream by a flood, [and the fact that] the property is in the floodway and 

floodplain;” and one of the three Board members seconded the denial of the application at the 

hearing due to “no documentation of the sewage disposal.” R.R. at 14a, 77a.

12 As the ultimate finder of fact, the Board was free to reject Landowner’s self-serving 

testimony in this regard. As we have explained, “[i]n conditional use proceedings where the trial 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
13

2. Portions of this campground and lake are located 

within the 100 year floodway. The improvements 

proposed in the floodway must be offset with material 

excavated from the proposed lake. Necessary permits for 

this work will be obtained prior to construction.

Id. at 182a. As acknowledged by Landowner’s surveyor at the Board hearing:

I think it’s important to keep in mind that the 

floodway is regulated not only by [the Township], but 

also by, once again, DEP. He’s not allowed to place any 

fill within that floodway without getting a joint permit. 

It’s a fairly extensive permit granted by DEP and it’s also 

regulated basically twice.

Id. at 43a.

Landowner presented no credited evidence that it has sought the 

required approvals necessary for the development and construction in the floodway 

or the use of the sewer facilities in the floodplain, or that such development meets

the express standards and criteria in the Zoning Ordinance outlined above. As we 

have explained, an applicant must “come forward with evidence detailing how it 

[will] be in compliance with the requirements necessary to obtain a special 

exception,” and “[e]vidence is not a ‘promise’ that the applicant will comply 

because that is a legal conclusion the Board makes once it hears what the applicant 

intends to do and then determines whether it matches the requirements set forth in 

the ordinance.” Edgmont Township v. Springton Lake Montessori School, 622 

 

(continued...)

court has taken no additional evidence, the Board is the finder of fact, empowered to judge the 

credibility of witnesses and the weight afforded to their testimony; a court may not substitute its 

interpretation of the evidence for that of the Board.” In re Richboro CD Partners, L.P., 89 A.3d 

at 754-55 (citation omitted).
14

A.2d 418, 419 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (citation omitted).

13

 Due to the limited 

evidence that Landowner presented as to how the development and construction 

would meet the express Zoning Ordinance requirements, the trial court did not err 

in affirming the Board’s denial of Landowner’s conditional use application.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.14

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

 

13 Cf. In re Application of Saunders, 636 A.2d 1308, 1311 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), appeal 

denied, 657 A.2d 494 (Pa. 1995) (“Saunders presented testimony, diagrams and descriptions of 

the proposed water and sewage facilities. Because approval of a use is only the first step along 

the road for Saunders to receive an occupancy permit and, because the Township’s conditional 

use requirements are limited, we are not convinced to expand them. Therefore, we hold that the 

information provided by Saunders was adequate to meet the requirement set forth in . . . the 

zoning ordinance that the mobile home park have ‘central sewer and water’ and that the 

Supervisors erred in denying the application on the basis that the application itself did not meet 

the requirements for adequate water and sewage.”).

14 Because Landowner failed to present evidence to satisfy the specific requirements of 

the Township’s Zoning Ordinance, we need not address its argument with respect to the 

satisfaction of the Ordinance’s general requirements and Objectors’ burden in that regard. 

Finally, with respect to the satisfaction of the specific requirements, Landowner’s reliance on 

Broussard v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh, 907 A.2d 494 (Pa. 2006) is 

misplaced. In that case, in support of a special exception for off-site parking, the landowner 

presented an Interim Planning Overlay District Plan; a Parking Demand Analysis Study; a 

Parking Management Plan that had been approved by the City; the testimony of a parking 

consultant; and a letter from the lessee-operator of a nearby parking garage confirming that there 

would be sufficient parking spaces to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Id. at 497. 

As the Supreme Court explained, “the Zoning Board interpreted the relevant provisions of the 

ordinance to permit granting a special exception where [the landowner]’s submissions contained 

adequate assurances that the off-site parking needs associated with the proposed use would be 

met in accordance with the requirements of the ordinance, even though no legally-binding 

contract existed at the time of the hearings.” Id. at 502. In contrast, in this case, there was 

absolutely no evidence presented to the Board other than the uncorroborated assertions of 

Landowner’s principal and surveyor that the specific requirements of the Township’s Zoning 

Ordinance would be satisfied.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mar-Del Holdings, LLC, :

: No. 1228 C.D. 2015

Appellant : 

:

v. :

:

Orange Township Board of Supervisors :

:

v. :

:

Mark Acker, Donna Acker, Morgan :

Barclay, Mary Barclay, Steve Beyer, :

Cindy Beyer, Patricia Brewster, Robert :

Brewster, Fred Brockway, Jan Brockway, :

Marty Chamberlain, Gail Chamberlain, :

John J. D’Orazio, Barbara D’Orazio, :

John D’Orazio, Pam D’Orazio, Susan B. :

Fetterman, Dan Fetterman, Nathaniel :

Flook, Sherry Flook, Charles Fritz, :

Jennifer Fritz, Susan Hales, Gary Hess, :

Penny Hess, Corey Hughes, Madeleine :

Hughes, Ronald Hunter, Janet Hunter, :

John Katch, Jennifer Thomas, George :

Larson, Nancy Larson, Jayleen Miller, :

Eric Ortuba, Amanda Ortuba, Larry :

Recla, Carrie Recla, Anthony Reed, :

Cathy Reed, Gregory Sherman, Joyce :

Sherman, Andrew Smith, Christine Smith, :

Eric Sorg, Erin Sorg, and Matthew :

Swinehart :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 12th day of May, 2016, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of the 26th Judicial District (Columbia County Branch) dated June 

22, 2015, is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge