Cardiff Heights, LP v. Ross Twp. Board of Commissioners ~ Appeal of: F.P. Cuda
1370 C.D. 2016 and 47 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Property: ~19.7 acres in Ross Township split‑zoned R‑1 and C‑1 with steep slopes; Cardiff Heights, L.P. is equitable owner; Cuda and the Rizzos own two parcels.
- Cardiff submitted four iterative PRD/tentative plans over ~8 months; the fourth (subject plan) proposed 72 townhomes and was presented to the Board on May 20, 2015.
- The Board denied tentative approval in a written decision dated July 2, 2015; denial upheld by the Court of Common Pleas and appealed to Commonwealth Court (consolidated appeals).
- Core legal dispute: whether the PRD was deemed approved and whether the Board properly denied the plan for noncompliance with ordinance standards (streets/cul‑de‑sac length and radii, density/feasibility, steep slope disturbance, usable open space), and whether the Township acted in bad faith.
- Board relied on SALDO/Zoning Ordinance standards applied to PRD (Court found PRDs fall within SALDO "land development" definition); Board cited objective/substantive violations (cul‑de‑sac >900 ft; right‑of‑way/cartway radii smaller than required).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deemed approval of conditional use / PRD | Cardiff: failure to issue written decision on conditional use and failure to vote on PRD = deemed approval | Board/Objectors: MPC/Zoning procedures followed; issue partly waived below | Conditional‑use deemed‑approval claim waived; PRD deemed‑approval claim rejected — Board acted within 60 days so no deemed approval |
| Applicability of SALDO standards to PRD | Cardiff: some standards (e.g., private street) need not meet public‑street specs or were only for final plan | Board: SALDO defines "street" to include private ways; PRD falls within SALDO "land development" so SALDO standards apply | SALDO standards apply to PRD through land‑development definition; street/cul‑de‑sac rules applicable |
| Street/cul‑de‑sac compliance (length and radii) | Cardiff: street was private so public standards shouldn't apply; also argued tentative approval shouldn't require final street specs | Board: ordinance requires all streets (public or private) meet Township specs; cul‑de‑sac length and radii are objective/substantive | Held for Board: cul‑de‑sac length (1200 ft > 900 ft) and radii (30 ft < required) violated objective, substantive SALDO standards — sufficient to affirm denial |
| Bad faith in review/denial process | Cardiff: Township failed to provide timely written comments, denied continuance, and issued post‑hearing engineering memo — showing lack of good faith and due process | Board: provided multiple reviews, five Gateway memoranda, Planning Commission review, opportunities to revise and rebut; actions consistent with good faith | No bad faith found: prior reviews, multiple revision opportunities, and fair hearing/rebuttal opportunity show municipality acted in good faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township v. West Chestnut Realty Corp., 532 A.2d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (SALDO standards may apply to PRDs where PRD qualifies as land development)
- Robal Associates, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township, 999 A.2d 630 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (a single objective, substantive ordinance violation justifies denial of a tentative PRD)
- Harvin v. Board of Commissioners of Upper Chichester Township, 33 A.3d 709 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (tentative plan must comply with objective ordinance provisions)
- Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, 132 A.3d 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (municipality must act in good faith and provide opportunity to address technical/interpretive issues)
- 1050 Ashbourne Assocs., LLC v. Cheltenham Township, 167 A.3d 828 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (survey of bad‑faith review standards; distinguishes permissible practice from misconduct)
- Highway Materials, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Whitemarsh Township, 974 A.2d 539 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (municipal inaction or refusal to engage can constitute bad faith)
- Kassouf v. Township of Scott, 883 A.2d 463 (Pa. 2005) (developers are not entitled to unlimited opportunities to correct plan defects)
- Raum v. Board of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Township, 370 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (last‑minute objections and refusal to consider timely revisions may demonstrate bad faith)