D.A. Ames v. The Planning Commission of Indiana Borough, Indiana County, and B&L Properties II, L.P.
1499 and 1500 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- B&L Properties submitted a land development plan (student housing) in 2012 under Indiana Borough’s Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) overlay; the Planning Commission granted preliminary and then final approval in 2013.
- Neighboring property owners (Ames, Stewarts, Moore, Bish) appealed, alleging the Commission approved a plan that violated multiple TND/Ordinance/SALDO requirements (setbacks, building orientation, built-to line, etc.).
- After final approval, the Borough repealed the TND provisions and replaced some officials; the Borough later intervened in the appeal siding with the private appellants and opposing the Planning Commission’s earlier approval.
- The trial court initially granted the neighbors’ appeal, then this Court vacated and remanded for a full de novo hearing because the trial court had limited evidence previously.
- On remand the trial court (after de novo review) found the plan could be corrected, concluded the Borough acted in bad faith by reversing course after the Commission’s approval, found B&L had vested rights to develop under the original Ordinance, and remanded to the Borough to identify technical objections and permit B&L to respond. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B&L was precluded from raising bad-faith/vested-rights arguments because of the parties' joint stipulation | Appellants: stipulation limited issues; B&L shouldn’t raise new legal theories at de novo hearing | B&L: stipulation limited only the list of claimed Ordinance violations; legal defenses preserved | Court: stipulation did not bar legal arguments; B&L allowed to raise them |
| Whether the Borough acted in bad faith by intervening to oppose the Commission’s prior approval | Appellants/Borough: intervention was statutory right to challenge Commission’s legal errors | B&L: Borough reversed course to defeat vested rights and prevent development; conduct amounted to bad faith | Court: Borough’s reversal and conduct supported bad-faith finding; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether B&L acquired vested rights to develop under the Ordinance in effect when it filed its plan | B&L: paid for and relied on approvals; Commission approved final plan—vested rights protect development | Appellants: plan violated many Ordinance provisions; vested-rights claim not dispositive | Court: vested-rights doctrine applicable here given Commission’s approval and Borough’s conduct; B&L had protectable rights |
| Whether the plan was capable of correction so remand for technical revisions was appropriate | Appellants: alleged many substantive violations (setbacks, front yard) requiring major redesign; plan not correctable | B&L: deficiencies were technical and could be resolved through review and revisions | Court: deficiencies appeared technical and correctable; remand to identify objections and allow B&L to respond was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, 132 A.3d 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (municipal bad-faith review can bar ordinance changes that unfairly deprive developer of rights)
- Highway Materials, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Whitemarsh Township, 974 A.2d 539 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (municipal failure to aid applicant or permit cure of defects supports bad-faith and vested-rights concerns)
- Raum v. Board of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Township, 370 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (applicant has vested right to develop under zoning in effect when application filed; municipality must act in good faith)
- Rouse/Chamberlain, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township, 504 A.2d 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (scope of review for planning commission actions; trial court review constraints)
- Borough of Youngsville v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Youngsville, 450 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (opinion need not include exhaustive findings if reasoning shows decision is not arbitrary)