Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Board of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township
132 A.3d 611
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Honey Brook Estates (Developer) purchased 39.9 acres zoned residential and on June 13, 2006 filed a preliminary plan for 78 townhouses. The Township planned a zoning amendment to rezone most of the parcel to agricultural.
- Engineer Reinert first rejected the plan as incomplete (five technical deficiencies); Developer promptly submitted an amended plan addressing those items.
- Township Manager Brown then declared the amended plan incomplete for three new reasons (sewage modules, certification of sewer/water, and a full traffic study) and initially told Developer the plan would not enter the Planning Commission review cycle.
- Despite telling Developer the plan was pulled, Township forwarded extensive materials (including 93 comments) to the Planning Commission, which recommended disapproval; the Board later voted to disapprove the amended preliminary plan based on many objections and without considering Developer’s supplemental submissions.
- Developer appealed, alleging the Township acted in bad faith to prevent vesting under the existing zoning; trial court found no bad faith and denied relief. Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded for review under the zoning in effect at filing and for an opportunity to address objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Township acted in bad faith in processing the preliminary plan | Township delayed and changed procedures to derail vesting; rejected plan without dialogue or chance to cure | Township lawfully rejected facially incomplete applications and applied SALDO procedures | Court held Township acted in bad faith by refusing to discuss, by rejecting then forwarding without notice, and by denying Developer the opportunity to respond |
| Whether remand would be futile because defects were incurable | Defects (sewer, water, density) were correctable or not fatal at preliminary stage | Township argued plan was facially defective (sewer district, density, water franchise) and thus unfixable | Court held defects were not incurable: sewer/water issues can be conditioned or remedied and density easily reduced; remand required |
| Whether Developer was entitled to review under zoning in effect at filing (vested rights/pending ordinance doctrine) | Filing of preliminary plan vested Developer’s rights under existing zoning; rezoning cannot defeat that right | Township asserted proper application of SALDO completeness rules and subsequently adopted zoning | Court ordered review under the zoning ordinance in effect when plan filed and protection under MPC Section 508(4) principles |
| Scope of municipal obligations in preliminary plan review | Developer: township must confer on technical/interpretive matters and allow reasonable opportunity to modify (per precedent) | Township: may refuse incomplete plans and follow SALDO §405 procedures | Court reiterated precedent requiring good-faith processing: discuss technical issues and allow opportunity to cure; remanded for compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Raum v. Board of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Township, 370 A.2d 777 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (municipality must act in good faith, confer on technical issues, and give applicant opportunity to respond/modify)
- Highway Materials, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Whitemarsh Township, 974 A.2d 539 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (affirming duty to afford applicant guidance and chance to cure where rezoning was pending)
- CACO Three, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Huntington Township, 845 A.2d 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (preliminary plans need not include final sewer/water design; board should condition final approval on obtaining required permits)
- Council of Middletown Township v. Benham, 523 A.2d 311 (Pa. 1987) (township cannot preclude development by requiring non-existent municipal services)