Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Township Board of Supervisors
30 A.3d 1083
| Pa. | 2011Background
- Piper Group challenged Bedminster Township's 1996 Agricultural Preservation District (AP District) zoning ordinance as unconstitutional.
- This challenge relied on C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. Hearing Bd., which had invalidated similar AP District requirements in 2002.
- Township responded by declaring the AP Ordinance invalid and enacting Ordinance 149 (cure) in 2003 to cure defects and allow higher density.
- Piper submitted a cure challenge seeking site-specific relief and a density plan of roughly 350 units on 400 acres with a 6,500 sq ft minimum lot size.
- Boards and courts held Piper’s cure challenge was reasonable in part, but ultimately found Ordinance 149 cured the defects; Piper appealed, arguing Casey/pendency doctrine required full site-specific relief.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide whether the lower courts erred in applying Casey and in creating an ‘acting quickly’ moratorium under MPC provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 609.2(3) controls the outcome | Piper contends 609.2(3) bars consideration of private cures once declaration and proposal begun. | Township argues 609.2(3) has no bearing here; challenge was governed by 609.1 and cure deemed reasonable. | 609.2(3) has no bearing; relief analyzed under 609.1 and cure approved. |
| Whether the lower courts’ ‘acting quickly’ standard violated the MPC | There is no moratorium or ‘acting quickly’ provision in the MPC; it improperly favored the municipality. | The lower courts’ standard aided orderly cure after invalidation. | The lower courts erred in adopting an ‘acting quickly’ moratorium; no such MPC moratorium exists. |
| Whether Casey’s pending ordinance doctrine requires site-specific relief up to Piper’s proposed cure | Casey requires definitive relief on Piper’s land prior to any municipality cure. | Casey is distinguishable; 609.1 cure was properly applied, and Ordinance 149 cured defects across the AP District. | Casey does not compel automatic site-specific relief; cure under 609.1 is appropriate and consistent with Casey’s rationale. |
| Whether Ordinance 149 severed unconstitutional provisions to cure the defects | Piper sought full site-specific relief beyond what Ordinance 149 provided. | Ordinance 149 cured defects by severing offending provisions across the AP District, including Piper’s land. | Ordinance 149 cured the defects via severance; Piper not entitled to full site-specific relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. Hearing Bd., 820 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002) (invalidated AP District’s one-acre minimum and related restrictions)
- Casey v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Warwick Twp., 328 A.2d 464 (Pa. 1974) (established pending ordinance doctrine and relief for challengers)
- Fernley v. Board of Supervisors, 502 A.2d 585 (Pa. 1985) (site-specific relief where applicable under Casey framework)
- H.R. Miller Co. Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 605 A.2d 321 (Pa. 1992) (distinguishes de facto vs de jure defects and relief limits)
- Willistown v. Chesterdale Farms, Inc., 341 A.2d 466 (Pa. 1975) (case recognizing site-specific relief principles under Casey)
- Girsh Appeal, 263 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1970) (early open-courts/play in land-use challenges reference point)