Board of Commissioners of Cheltenham Twp. v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P.
166 A.3d 496
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Developer (Hansen-Lloyd, L.P.) filed a mandatory tentative sketch plan in December 2008 proposing an age‑restricted, multi‑dwelling development on ~10 acres in Cheltenham Township; the Township reviewed the sketch under the 2008 zoning ordinance.
- The Township repealed the 2008 ordinance in 2010 and enacted a more restrictive Age Restricted Overlay in 2012; additional unrelated 2015 ordinance amendments followed.
- The sketch plan remained pending (2009–2015) by agreement while parties negotiated alternative plans; Developer repeatedly extended review periods.
- In May 2015 Developer filed for special exceptions and related relief before the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB), expressly invoking the 2008 ordinance; Developer conceded the proposed project would not comply with the 2012 ordinance.
- The ZHB applied Section 508(4)(i) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and held the 2008 ordinance governed because the mandatory sketch plan was filed and pending when that ordinance was in effect; the trial court affirmed and this Court likewise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mandatory sketch plan vests the right to have later-filed zoning applications judged under the ordinance in effect when the sketch was filed | Sketch-plan filing vests protection under MPC §508(4) so later zoning relief must be judged under the earlier ordinance | MPC §917 governs when zoning relief is filed later; §508(4) protects only plats/land development, not subsequent zoning applications | Held for Developer: §508(4) applies because the sketch was a mandatory step and the land‑development application was pending, so the 2008 ordinance governed the later zoning application |
| Whether applying §508(4) conflicts with §917 or renders §917 surplusage | §508(4) and §917 apply depending on which application is filed first; no conflict | §917 should govern zoning applications and §508(4) cannot be used to evade §917 | Held: No conflict — §508(4) governs when land‑development/plat was filed first; §917 governs when zoning is filed first |
| Whether land in adjoining Springfield Township can be used to satisfy Cheltenham setback requirements | Municipal boundary is not necessarily a property line; absent ordinance language, setbacks measured from property lines, so adjoining land may be used | ZHB lacks authority to consider extraterritorial land to meet municipal dimensional requirements (Hamilton Hills) | Held: ZHB correctly concluded municipal boundary is not a property line under the 2008 ordinance; decision did not exert control over land outside municipality and therefore was proper |
| Whether ZHB issued an improper advisory opinion by making determinations/interpretations | Developer requested interpretations as part of its special exception/variance requests; not an advisory opinion | Township: ZHB exceeded jurisdiction by issuing advisory interpretations | Held: No advisory opinion — interpretations were requested in connection with specific relief, so ZHB had jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehigh Asphalt Paving & Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Supervisors of E. Penn Twp., 830 A.2d 1063 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (MPC §917 protects zoning applications that are filed first when approval would culminate in land development)
- Philomeno & Salamone v. Bd. of Supervisors of Upper Merion Twp., 966 A.2d 1109 (Pa. 2009) (distinguishes land‑use plans from use/zoning; zoning controls use, plats control how land is developed)
- Hamilton Hills Grp., LLC v. Hamilton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 4 A.3d 788 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (municipality may not exert regulatory control over land outside its borders to satisfy local requirements)
- Miravich v. Twp. of Exeter, 54 A.3d 106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (when sketch plan is mandatory, the sketch‑filing date governs which ordinance applies)
- Darrah, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Spring Garden Twp., 928 A.2d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (zoning hearing boards lack jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions absent a request for specific relief)