Appeal of Richboro CD Partners, L.P.
89 A.3d 742
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Richboro CD Partners sought conditional-use approval to build a shopping center with a supermarket on a split‑zoned 10.5329‑acre site partly in R‑2 (residential) and partly in the Village Overlay District (VOD) of C‑2 (general commercial).
- The Northampton Township Board denied the application; the Trial Court affirmed. Denial rested on four bases: supermarket not permitted in C‑2 except via VOD rules; VOD plan failed to meet SALDO requirements; proposed impervious surface exceeded ordinance limits; projected traffic impacts would harm public health/safety.
- Ordinance defines “Shopping Center” to require ≥60% of floor area for retail/general merchandise and lists shopping centers as conditional uses in C‑2 but separately permits supermarkets within C‑3 shopping centers.
- The VOD was created to allow certain C‑3 uses (including supermarkets in shopping centers) by conditional use in the VOD, but VOD conditional‑use applicants must submit plans conforming to preliminary land development (SALDO) requirements.
- Site split: net site area 10.5329 acres (6.2977 acres in VOD/C‑2; 4.2352 acres in R‑2). Board blended district impervious limits to compute a 4.91639‑acre maximum; Richboro’s plans exceeded that amount.
- Board credited township and neighbors’ traffic experts over Richboro’s expert and found the supermarket/shopping‑center configuration would create abnormal and materially harmful traffic impacts; one proffered mitigation was deemed dangerously counterproductive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a supermarket is permitted in a C‑2 shopping center | Supermarket is a “general merchandise”/“retail store” within the shopping‑center definition, so allowed as part of a conditional‑use shopping center in C‑2 | Ordinance limits which retail uses may occupy a C‑2 shopping center; supermarkets are permitted only in C‑3 shopping centers or in the VOD under VOD rules | Supermarket not permitted in C‑2 shopping center unless located in VOD and developed per VOD requirements |
| Whether the Board could require SALDO compliance at conditional‑use stage for VOD plan | Requiring detailed SALDO compliance at conditional‑use stage improperly demands design details beyond use | VOD conditional‑use applicants must submit design/land‑development plans conforming to SALDO; noncompliance can justify denial | Board permissibly required the VOD plan to meet objective SALDO requirements that bear on land use; failure to comply warranted denial |
| Proper method to calculate impervious surface on split‑zoned site | Use net site area and apply C‑2/VOD 70% across whole site because improvements are in C‑2 | Where ordinance limits differ by district, blend/apply district‑specific limits to portions of site and sum results | Court upheld blending district limits and applying appropriate R‑2 percentage (12% for “other permitted uses”) to R‑2 portion; Board’s calculation affirmed |
| Whether traffic impacts supported denial despite meeting ordinance criteria | Traffic expert showed acceptable impacts and proposed mitigations; denial on traffic grounds was unjustified | Opposing experts showed abnormal, substantial traffic harms; some proposed mitigations were unsafe or speculative | Substantial evidence supported Board’s finding that traffic from the proposed development would be detrimental; denial on that ground affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- K. Hovnanian Pennsylvania Acquisitions, LLC v. Newtown Township Board of Supervisors, 954 A.2d 718 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (conditional‑use standards and applicant burden)
- In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (distinguishing land‑use compliance from construction/design detail at conditional‑use stage)
- In re Drumore Crossings, L.P., 984 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (limits on requiring detailed operational approvals at conditional‑use stage)
- Appeal of Brickstone Realty, 789 A.2d 333 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (traffic proof and scope of permissible evidence for special/conditional exceptions)
- Appeal of Baldwin School, 932 A.2d 291 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (approach to split‑zoned impervious coverage when ordinance silent)
- Visionquest National, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, 569 A.2d 915 (Pa.) (applicant initially bears burden to show ordinance compliance for conditional use)
- Joseph v. North Whitehall Township Board of Supervisors, 16 A.3d 1209 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (objectors’ high burden to prove conditional‑use traffic will be detrimental)