Some may contend that the concept of real estate development, by its very definition, requires at least some modicum of vision aimed at meeting future demand in the marketplace. In fact, some developers have the capacity to manufacture demand, creating a community so enticing that buyers, who may not have originally been targeting a specific locale, alter their perception of what they want or even need. In other words, there are those projects that have the potential to spark a population spurt in an otherwise slow growth area. Even with the most ingenious foresight however, land use restrictions can occasionally rear their head, quelling the passion associated with entrepreneurship.
On Jan. 27, our Commonwealth Court handed down an unpublished opinion that, in our estimation, illustrates the “do’s” and “don’ts” when proposing a curative amendment to a municipal zoning board. Numerous landmines confront the unwary developer in a staunchly agricultural township. Plus the “fair share” principles announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1978 can wreak havoc upon developers who wish to penetrate an area that purports to have sufficient housing to satisfy present demand.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
