In Re: ZHB of Cheltenham Twp 12-16-15 Decision
211 A.3d 845
| Pa. | 2019Background
- Developer (Hansen-Lloyd) filed a tentative sketch plan (a preliminary land-development "plat") with Cheltenham Township in December 2008; that plan remained pending for years with multiple agreed extensions.
- Cheltenham's 2008 Zoning Ordinance then in effect allowed the proposed age-restricted housing by special exception; the Commissioners repealed that overlay (2010) and later enacted a more restrictive 2012 overlay.
- A preliminary analysis of the 2008 sketch plan identified that Developer would need zoning relief (special exceptions) to proceed.
- In May 2015, while the 2008 sketch plan was still pending, Developer filed a zoning application with the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) seeking relief under the 2008 ordinance; the Commissioners argued the 2012 ordinance governed.
- The ZHB and trial court applied the 2008 ordinance based on Subsection 508(4)(i) of the MPC; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether Section 917 or §508(4)(i) controls in this circumstance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Developer) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MPC §10508(4)(i) (plat protection) prevents a municipality from applying a later, adverse zoning ordinance to a subsequently filed zoning application that is related to and necessary for a pending plat | Filing the land-development application (2008 sketch plan) first vested Developer with the zoning rules in effect at that filing; §508(4)(i) thus shields both the pending plat and any related later zoning application needed to effectuate that plat | §10917 governs zoning applications; its plain text fixes the governing zoning law as of the time the zoning application is filed and provides its own limited safe harbor; §508(4)(i) applies only to plats and cannot be read to subsume §10917’s distinct procedure | The Court held §10508(4)(i)’s protection of a pending land-development application extends to related zoning applications filed during the pendency of that plat when zoning relief is necessary to carry out the plat; affirmed the Commonwealth Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 162 A.3d 384 (Pa. 2017) (standard of review for statutory interpretation; de novo review)
- Meadows of Hanover Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of South Hanover Twp., 734 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1999) (purpose of §508(4) is to protect developers from changes in zoning/planning laws during project pendency)
- Bd. of Comm’rs of Cheltenham Twp. v. Hansen-Lloyd, L.P., 166 A.3d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (Commonwealth Court opinion affirming ZHB and trial court; held §508(4)(i) protections extend to subsequent related zoning applications)
- Mohamed v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 40 A.3d 1186 (Pa. 2012) (courts must not add terms to clear statutes; interpretive principle cited in dissent)