Planned Residential Development

Pennypacker v. Ferguson Twp.

The Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) permits planned residential developments (PRD) as a means of “approving large developments which override[ ] traditional zoning controls and permit[ ] the introduction of flexibility into the design of larger developments." Appeals from final plan approval of a PRD where an appeal from tentative plan approval was not taken are generally prohibited. When appealing, appellant must state the grounds for appeal in the notice of appeal and unstated claims are waived.

Pennypacker v. Ferguson Twp., 167 A.3d 209 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)

Date of Decision: 5/17/17


View Case Details »

Itama Dev. Assocs., LP v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Rostraver (2016)

At times, a broad view of nonconforming uses is appropriate. For instance, when comparing a garage for school buses and vehicles, including repair bays and fueling equipment, to a use to hold trucks for the oil and gas industry. The use of the property remains the same even if the business using it changes.

Itama Dev. Assocs., LP v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Rostraver, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 34 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).

Date of Decision: 1/7/16


View Case Details »

Ligo v. Slippery Rock Township (2007)

Township approved a planned residential development that was consistent with the Township’s Comprehensive Plan and met the specific provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that were applicable to PRDs.

Ligo v. Slippery Rock Township, 936 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007).


View Case Details »

Kang v. Supervisors of Spring Twp. (2001)

PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: USES APPROVED IN PRD PLAN CANNOT BE EXPANDED BY SUBSEQUENT RELIANCE ON OTHER USES PERMITTED IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.

Kang v. Supervisors of Spring Township, (Pa. Commw., May 4, 2001) 776 A.2d 324
Alta Vista Condo v. Hempfield


View Case Details »