1050 Ashbourne Associates, LLC v. Cheltenham Township Board of Commissioners
167 A.3d 828
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Developer (1050 Ashbourne Associates, LLC) owns 7.32 acres in Cheltenham Township zoned R-4 and within the Age-Restricted Overlay District; it proposed three age‑restricted apartment buildings (four stories each).
- The Zoning Hearing Board granted Developer a special exception on January 14, 2013; the trial court affirmed that grant on September 15, 2014.
- In July 2012 the Township amended the Age-Restricted Overlay District to reduce maximum building height; those amendments post‑dated Developer’s special exception application (filed May 30, 2012).
- Developer submitted a SALDO-required sketch plan on June 16, 2015; the Board of Commissioners disapproved it, citing (1) building unit limits in the Preservation Overlay District and (2) the 2012 height limits.
- The trial court held the Preservation Overlay District did not apply (Age-Restricted provisions control) but upheld the disapproval because Developer’s buildings supposedly violated the 2012 height restrictions. The court also rejected Developer’s bad‑faith claim.
- On appeal this Court affirmed that Preservation Overlay rules do not apply and that there was no bad faith, but reversed the trial court on the 2012 height issue, holding Developer remained exempt from those amendments under the Township’s two‑year special‑exception implementation period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Preservation Overlay District limits (8 units/building) apply to an Age‑Restricted Overlay special‑exception project | Developer: Age‑Restricted Overlay controls; its provisions are paramount and silence as to unit count permits more than eight units | Commissioners: Age‑Restricted silence creates a vacuum filled by Preservation Overlay; Developer should have sought variance/clarification | Held: Age‑Restricted Overlay governs; Preservation Overlay does not apply to conflict because §295‑241.D makes Age‑Restricted provisions paramount |
| Whether 2012 height amendments to Age‑Restricted Overlay apply to Developer's sketch plan | Developer: Its rights vested when special exception was filed/granted; MPC §917 and Township code preserve governing ordinance in effect at filing; thus 2012 amendments inapplicable | Commissioners: Issue waived; even on merits, Developer failed to file sketch plan within six‑month/authorized period to preserve prior rules | Held: Developer preserved the claim; §295‑211 gives a two‑year period to implement a special exception and Developer filed within that period, so the 2012 height amendments do not apply |
| Whether §917 of MPC preempts or limits the Township’s zoning time provisions for filing plans after special‑exception approval | Developer: §917 insulates applicants from subsequent adverse amendments and entitles applicant to the governing ordinance as of filing; municipal longer period applies | Commissioners: §917 creates a strict six‑month rule or otherwise controls, so Developer missed the deadline | Held: §917 allows a six‑month minimum but contemplates a “longer” period set by governing ordinance; Township’s §295‑211 (two‑year period) validly implements §917, so Developer filed in time |
| Whether the Board of Commissioners acted in bad faith by disapproving the sketch plan without prior notice of objections | Developer: Commissioners raised new objections late (height) and denied time to respond, so acted in bad faith | Commissioners: Developer’s design intentionally exceeded limits; Commissioners requested more time but Developer refused, so no bad faith | Held: No bad faith shown; facts did not meet precedents requiring remand or mandatory approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Raum v. Board of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Township, 370 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (municipal duty to confer with applicant and allow reasonable opportunity to respond; last‑minute objections can show bad faith)
- Highway Materials, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Whitemarsh Township, 974 A.2d 539 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (township’s refusal to assist/defer on technical issues and silence may constitute lack of good faith)
- Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, 132 A.3d 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (municipality must discuss technical/ordinance issues and give opportunity to modify plans; failure may show bad faith)
- Allegheny County v. Commonwealth, 490 A.2d 402 (Pa. 1985) (on appeal, parties may identify additional legal authority to support claims raised below)