![Anna S. Jewart of Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir. Courtesy Photo](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2021/10/Anna-Skipper-01-767x633.jpg)
Court Addresses Limitations on Approval of Planned Residential Developments
The requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance are strictly applied, and landowners must comply with the express use and dimensional limitations applicable in the zoning districts in which their properties are located.
October 21, 2021 at 01:35 PM
8 minute read
The requirements of a municipal zoning ordinance are strictly applied, and landowners must comply with the express use and dimensional limitations applicable in the zoning districts in which their properties are located. Landowners wishing to stray from the regulations of that district are usually forced to request relief in the form of a variance, the standards for the granting of which are quite rigorous. However, Article VII of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, (MPC), 53 P.S. Sections 10701-10713, authorizes municipalities to enact, amend and repeal provisions within a zoning ordinance fixing standards and conditions for a "planned residential development" (PRD), a form of land development intended to offer an alternative to traditional, cookie-cutter zoning. The opinion of the Commonwealth Court in Gouwens v. Indiana Township Board of Supervisors (Gouwens II), offers an opportunity to revisit the foundations of PRD regulation and to explore the requirements for the tentative approval of a PRD. See Gouwens v. Indiana Township Board of Supervisors, Nos. 544, 992-994 C.D. 2020, 2021 (Pa. Cmwlth. July 8, 2021), publication ordered (Sept. 7, 2021)(Gouwens II), on appeal following remand of Gouwens v. Indiana Township Board of Supervisors, Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1377 C.D. 2018, (filed June 25, 2019), publication ordered (Sept. 7, 2021) (Gouwens I).
A PRD is a larger, integrated residential development that may not meet the use and dimensional standards normally applicable in the underlying zoning district. The idea behind PRD regulations is to create a method of approving large developments which overrides traditional zoning controls and permits the introduction of flexibility into their design. PRD provisions are intended to address a growing demand for housing of all types and design by promoting and encouraging flexibility in land-use regulation, innovation in residential design and layout, and more efficient use of land and public services, while insuring development is carried out under administrative standards and procedures that prevent undue delay. Although PRD regulations represent an opportunity for departure from the terms of the zoning ordinance, they must be based on and interpreted in relation to the statement of community development objectives of that ordinance and must contain certain provisions.
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
© 2025 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![Pa. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Pa. Statutes Restricting the Ability of Municipalities to Regulate Firearms Pa. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Pa. Statutes Restricting the Ability of Municipalities to Regulate Firearms](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/06/Hosack-Korns-767x633.jpg)
Pa. Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds Pa. Statutes Restricting the Ability of Municipalities to Regulate Firearms
7 minute read![Finding a Place for Zoning and Pro Bono Service Finding a Place for Zoning and Pro Bono Service](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/10/Meredith-Ferleger-767x633.jpg)
![Zoning Enforcement Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them Zoning Enforcement Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/10/Junker-Madden-767x633.jpg)
![Right-to-Know Law Policy Update in Wake of Anonymous FOIA Buddy Record Requests Right-to-Know Law Policy Update in Wake of Anonymous FOIA Buddy Record Requests](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/08/Hosack-Junker-767x633.jpg)
Right-to-Know Law Policy Update in Wake of Anonymous FOIA Buddy Record Requests
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Orrick Picks Up 13-Lawyer Tech, VC Group From Gunderson Dettmer
- 2How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning
- 3How Lower Courts Are Interpreting Justices' Decision in 'Muldrow v. City of St. Louis'
- 4Phantom Income/Retained Earnings and the Potential for Inflated Support
- 5Should a Financially Dependent Child Who Rejects One Parent Still Be Emancipated?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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