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), a township ordinance required that a mobile home park sewage system be connected to a public system, whenever feasible, and that if a connection to a public system was not feasible, the proposed sewage disposal facilities be approved by DEP prior to construction. The ordinance set forth design standards for a sewage system. The developer submitted its engineer's report regarding the feasibility of sewer connection to the public system, and it also submitted the plan for the proposed sewer and wastewater collection system and obtained a Part I NPDES Permit from DEP for the proposed system. In stating that the plan submitted by the developer did not contain sufficient details for the sewer system, the township's board of supervisors failed to list specific standards which the developer failed to meet, in violation of Section 508(2) of the MPC. The Court held that it is more reasonable and consistent with the mandate of Section 508(2) of the MPC to condition final approval of the development plan upon obtaining all the required permits from DEP, rather than rejecting the plan outright. The Court addressed the status of a comprehensive plan in reviewing a lower court's disapproval of a preliminary land development plan. The Court stated that while a comprehensive plan is a useful tool for guiding growth and development, it is by its nature, an abstract recommendation as to land utilization. Inconsistency with a comprehensive plan is not a proper basis for denying a land development plan. Similarly, it cannot be a basis for a substantive challenge to a zoning ordinance.