Delchester Developers, L.P. v. London Grove Township Board of Supervisors
161 A.3d 1106
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Delchester Developers appealed the Chester County trial court’s affirmation of London Grove Township Board of Supervisors’ (BOS) July 15, 2014 denial of a preliminary subdivision and land development plan.
- BOS issued a decision with 44 specific reasons for denial across zoning, Groundwater Protection District (GWPD), SALDO, sewer/water, stormwater management (SWMO), and general categories.
- Delchester challenged (a) insufficiency/specificity of several denial grounds under Section 508(2) of the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC); (b) improper incorporation of consultant review letters; (c) denial based on lack of third‑party permits rather than conditioning approval; and (d) bad faith by the Township.
- The Township argued many denial grounds were substantive, that some listed items were included for completeness (not independent bases), that consultant letters were incorporated appropriately, and that conditioned approval precedent did not apply because the Plan failed to meet objective ordinance requirements.
- The trial court found the BOS acted in good faith, that Delchester was given repeated opportunities and time to cure defects over a multi‑year review, and affirmed the denial; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether BOS’s reasons satisfied Section 508(2) specificity requirements | Delchester: several numbered reasons were too vague or failed to cite SALDO provisions | BOS: many challenged items were sufficiently specific or included only for completeness; multiple unchallenged substantive grounds remain | Held: BOS gave sufficiently specific grounds; even one substantial supported reason sustains denial |
| 2. Whether BOS improperly relied on/failed to incorporate consultant review letters properly | Delchester: BOS impermissibly incorporated external consultant comments without identifying which documents supported denial | BOS: consultant reviews were known to Delchester and properly referenced; incorporated materials supported findings | Held: incorporation/usage of consultant reviews immaterial because at least one independent substantive basis for denial was supported |
| 3. Whether BOS should have granted conditional approval pending third‑party permits | Delchester: denial improperly based on lack of third‑party permits — should have conditionally approved | BOS: conditional‑approval precedent inapplicable because plan failed to meet objective substantive ordinance requirements | Held: where plan fails substantive requirements, denial (not conditional approval) is appropriate |
| 4. Whether BOS acted in bad faith in reviewing/denying the Plan | Delchester: BOS acted in bad faith by litigating before ZHB, not giving cure opportunity, and obstructing process | BOS: repeatedly provided review letters, deadlines, extensions, waivers, and opportunities to cure; appearance before ZHB defended ordinances, not bad faith | Held: no bad faith; record shows BOS acted in good faith and Delchester failed to timely correct substantive defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Herr v. Lancaster County Planning Commission, 625 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (one legitimate basis for denial supports rejection)
- Kassouf v. Township of Scott, 883 A.2d 463 (Pa. 2005) (requirements for incorporation of external documents and reciprocal good‑faith standard)
- Shelbourne Sq. Assocs. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 794 A.3d 946 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (distinguishing technical defects from substantive grounds; single substantive ground can sustain denial)
- Robal Assocs., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Charlestown Township, 999 A.2d 630 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (examples of sufficient substantive denial grounds)
- Schultheis v. Bd. of Supervisors of Upper Bern Township, 727 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (soil/percolation, wetlands, and erosion controls are substantive requirements)
- Raum v. Bd. of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Township, 370 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (municipal bad faith where governing body obstructs developer; discussed as contrast)