Subdivision and Land Development

BR Assocs. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Twp. of Upper St. Clair

Zoning boards are inappropriate venues to resolve issues of title. A board should not deny a plan because outside approvals are pending; rather, it should approve the plan subject to approval by outside state agencies.

BR Assocs. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Twp. of Upper St. Clair, 136 A.3d 548 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)

Date of Decision: 5/5/16


View Case Details »

Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of Honey Brook Twp.

The duty of good faith includes (1) “discussing matters involving technical requirements or ordinance interpretation with an applicant” and (2) “providing a reasonable opportunity to respond to objections or modify plans where there has been a misunderstanding or difference of opinion.”

Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of Honey Brook Twp., 132 A.3d 611 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).

Date of Decision: 1/13/16


View Case Details »

Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, LLC

This decision discusses the language and interpretation of Article VI, Section 10617, of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Code (“MPC”) as to whether a private cause of action to enforce a subdivision and land development ordinance (“SALDO”), located in Article V of the MPC, is permitted. The Court concluded the term “act” in the MPC refers to the MPC as a whole, as opposed to specific articles and titles; therefore, the private cause of action was permissible despite the SALDO provisions being located in another article of the MPC.

Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, LLC, 165 A.3d 93 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)

Date of Decision: 6/27/17


View Case Details »

In re Appeal by Grande Land, L.P.

Where an ordinance requires that a proposed development plan shows the development will be served by a sewage disposal system approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), applicants are only required to show the proposed system is one that is typically approved by DEP.

In re Appeal by Grande Land, L.P., 174 A.3d 1178 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)

Date of Decision: 11/17/17


View Case Details »

Twp. of Salem v. Miller Penn Dev., LLC

The nullum tempus doctrine applies when governments are enforcing strictly public rights. Where the nullum tempus doctrine applies, a municipality’s claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. Section 511 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) requires that developers bear the cost of correcting improperly installed improvements. Even though Section 511 of the MPC presumes the existence of a security instrument and refers to enforcement of improvements covered by a security instrument, municipalities have the right to recover the cost of improvements even where there is no security.

Twp. of Salem v. Miller Penn Dev., LLC, 142 A.3d 912 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016)

Date of Decision: 5/26/16


View Case Details »

Dambman v. Bd. of Supervisors

Where a township’s subdivision and land development ordinance is silent as to when a zoning permit must be obtained in relation to an application for approval of a land development plan, there is no requirement that an applicant obtain zoning permits before seeking approvals for the land development plan.

Dambman v. Bd. of Supervisors, 171 A.3d 969 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017)

Date of Decision: 10/6/17


View Case Details »

Miravich v. Twp. of Exeter (2010)

Appellant to subdivision or land development plan approval need not have attended or participated in any of the municipal meetings at which the plan was considered in order to establish standing.

Miravich v. Twp. of Exeter, 6 A.3d 1076 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).


View Case Details »