101 A.3d 37
Pa.2014Background
- PRD Ordinance enacted July 13, 2009 under MPC Article VII to foster flexible, mixed-use residential development.
- NSE challenged the PRD Ordinance’s validity and the approval of BPG’s Tentative PRD Plan for a ~218-acre tract.
- Township Board orally approved Tentative Plan Oct 13, 2009; written approval issued Dec 4, 2009.
- Zoning Board upheld validity; NSE appealed to common pleas; common pleas upheld validity and Board’s approval.
- Commonwealth Court upheld both validity and Board’s Tentative Plan approval; NSE sought allowance of appeal to this Court.
- This Court granted NSE’s petitions on three issues regarding use designation, MPC interpretation, and final plan compliance; the dissent urged more precise use designation and public-comment safeguards.
- Dissent by Justice Eakin contends the plan’s broad multi-use designations lack necessary specificity and undermine public consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPC use designation at tentative plan must identify specific uses | NSE argues tentative plan must name specific uses, not broad categories | BPG/Ntwn argue MPC allows categorical uses ( residential vs nonresidential) to maintain flexibility | No; categorization suffices; use designation need not name each specific use. |
| Interpretation of MPC 707(4)(iv) regarding use designation | NSE contends MSP requires more than generic categories | Commonwealth Court’s interpretation aligns with MPC’s flexibility | Court adopts broad, category-based use designation; no error in interpretation. |
| Tentative Plan compliance when uses are not fully identified | NSE claims plan’s open-ended designations undermine notice and final-review | Plan complies if consistent with tentative Plan and PRD Ordinance; waivers on certain objections valid | Tentative Plan compliance upheld; waivers and flexibility consistent with Article VII. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kang v. Supervisors of Township of Spring, 776 A.2d 324 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2001) (affords deference to local zoning interpretations; conflict with due process minimal)
- Eves v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 401 Pa. 211, 164 A.2d 7 (Pa. 1960) (flatly rejects flexible selective zoning; supports comprehensive plan approach)
- Dechert LLP v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 606 Pa. 334, 998 A.2d 575 (Pa. 2010) (statutory interpretation guidance for reviewing agency actions)
- Township of Exeter v. Zoning Hearing Board of Exeter Township, 599 Pa. 568, 962 A.2d 653 (Pa. 2009) (constitutional due process and property rights in zoning contexts)
- Aldridge v. Jackson Township, 983 A.2d 247 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (limits of interpretive scope for local zoning interpretations)