Stormwater Management Ordinance Not Land Use Ordinance Under MPC
The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., authorizes municipalities to engage in land use planning and implement land use controls through a number of mechanisms, including comprehensive plans, official maps, zoning ordinances, subdivision and land development ordinances and planned residential developments.
June 22, 2017 at 04:28 PM
13 minute read
The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. Section 10101 et seq., authorizes municipalities to engage in land use planning and implement land use controls through a number of mechanisms, including comprehensive plans, official maps, zoning ordinances, subdivision and land development ordinances and planned residential developments. On May 9, the Commonwealth Court rendered a decision in Delchester Developers v. Zoning Hearing Board, 2017 Pa. Commw. Ct. LEXIS 192 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017), concluding, among other things, that stormwater management ordinances are not land use ordinances governed by the MPC.
In Delchester Developers, Delchester Developers L.P. submitted a preliminary land development plan application to the township of London Grove seeking approval to develop commercially two lots located within the township's Groundwater Protection Overlay District. The overlay district encompasses a threatened geological formation in the township that allows water to move quickly through it. In recognition of the threat to and challenges posed by the geological formation, the township board of supervisors adopted stringent stormwater management regulations applicable in the overlay district to ensure recharge, prevent sinkhole formation and protect the groundwater from contamination.
In order to effectuate its plans, Delchester sought several variances and special exceptions from the township's zoning hearing board, and brought challenges to the substantive validity of various township ordinances, including the township's stormwater management ordinance (SWMO). The township zoning hearing board denied all of Delchester's requests. The zoning hearing board rejected Delchester's substantive validity challenge to the SWMO, concluding that because the SWMO is not a land use ordinance under the MPC, the zoning hearing board lacked jurisdiction over the challenge. The trial court affirmed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Right-to-Know Law Policy Update in Wake of Anonymous FOIA Buddy Record Requests
9 minute read
Commonwealth Court Remands Injection Well Case to Plum Borough ZHB
Trending Stories
- 1Law Firm Real Estate Strategy: Attorney Offices Are Out, Conference Rooms Are In
- 2AI Governance In Practice
- 3Section 1782 Practice Pointers From Recent Decisions
- 4Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
- 5Decision of the Day: Split Circuit Panel Bars Enforcement of Ivory Law's 'Display Restriction' on Antique Group Members
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
