Bd. of Commissioners of Cheltenham Twp. v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., PICS Case No. 17-1129 (Pa. Commw. July 6, 2017) Wojcik, J. (20 pages)..
In this case of first impression, the appellate court held that a developer's filing of a mandatory sketch plan created a vested right of consideration of the plan as well as any future related zoning applications under the ordinance in effect at the time the sketch plan was filed. The court affirmed a decision granting the developer's application for special exceptions.
July 28, 2017 at 02:15 PM
6 minute read
Special Exceptions • Applicable Zoning Ordinance • Mandatory Sketch Plan
Bd. of Commissioners of Cheltenham Twp. v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., PICS Case No. 17-1129 (Pa. Commw. July 6, 2017) Wojcik, J. (20 pages)..
In this case of first impression, the appellate court held that a developer's filing of a mandatory sketch plan created a vested right of consideration of the plan as well as any future related zoning applications under the ordinance in effect at the time the sketch plan was filed. The court affirmed a decision granting the developer's application for special exceptions.
Developer Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., owned property in Cheltenham Township. In 2008, the Township enacted a zoning ordinance (2008 Ordinance) which created an age-restricted overlay district within the Township. The 2008 Ordinance permitted age-restricted housing and clubhouse uses by special exception. In December 2008, developer submitted a mandatory “tentative sketch plan” for its proposed age-restricted housing development pursuant to the 2008 Ordinance. The Montgomery County Planning Commission and the Township reviewed the sketch plan and provided a preliminary analysis under the 2008 Ordinance. From 2009 to 2015, developer's sketch plan remained pending by agreement while the parties were involved in negotiations. However, the Township repealed the 2008 Ordinance in 2010. Two years later, the Township enacted a new ordinance (2012 Ordinance) reinstating an age-restricted overlay district with more stringent dimensional criteria than the 2008 Ordinance. In May 2015, developer applied to the Cheltenham Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board) for a special exception, seeking necessary zoning relief to construct the age-restricted development it proposed. The Board determined that the 2008 Ordinance governed rather than the 2012 Ordinance. Since developer met the criteria under the 2008 Ordinance, the Board granted the special exceptions. Here, the Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Township appealed from a trial court order affirming the Board's decision to grant developer's application. In this case of first impression, the appellate court considered whether under the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), the developer's filing of a mandatory sketch plan created a vested right of consideration of the plan as well as any future related zoning applications under the ordinance in effect when the sketch plan was filed. The court considered Section 508(4) of MPC and found that the language of the statute made clear that an applicant has a “vested right” to develop property in accordance with the zoning in effect at the time its application was filed. Moreover, where a sketch plan is a mandatory step in a municipality's land development process, the date the applicant submitted its sketch plan is the governing date. Despite a lack of case law directly on point, the court found it clear from the language of the statute that Section 508(4) protects a land development plan from future ordinance changes. “While a land development application is pending, 'no change or amendment of the zoning' shall adversely affect such application,” the court stated. The 2008 Ordinance was in effect when developer submitted, and the Township accepted, the mandatory sketch plan. As such, the Board properly determined that the 2008 Ordinance governed.
Special Exceptions • Applicable Zoning Ordinance • Mandatory Sketch Plan
Bd. of Commissioners of Cheltenham Twp. v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., PICS Case No. 17-1129 (Pa. Commw. July 6, 2017) Wojcik, J. (20 pages)..
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 AllPa. Bill Would Raise State Damages Cap, but Plaintiffs Attorneys Are Not On Board
6 minute readDefendant's Dealings With Phila. Supplier Not Enough to Establish Venue, Split Appeals Court Rules
4 minute readSales Tax Class Actions and Indemnity Obligations: What's on the Pa. Supreme Court's October Agenda
5 minute readPhila. Judge Rules $12M Crash Verdict Was Backed by Evidence as Case Heads to Appeal
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
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