Subdivision and Land Development

In re Appeal by Grande Land, L.P., Pa. Commw. (2017)

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 »

Dambman v. Board of Supervisors, Pa. Commw. (2017)

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 »

Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate, LLC, Pa. Commw. (2017)

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 »

Twp. of Salem v. Miller Penn Dev., LLC, Pa. Commw. (2016)

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 »

Honey Brook Estates, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors of Honey Brook Township, Pa. Commw. (2016)

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 »

White v. Township of Upper St. Clair, Pa. Commw. (2009)

Waiver and laches do not serve as a defense to a citizen’s action challenging a zoning amendment to permit a communications tower on public property where the municipality failed to provide sufficient information to put citizens on notice of the project.

White v. Township of Upper St. Clair, Pa. Cmwlth., 799 A.2d 188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002)

White v. Township of Upper St. Clair, No. 886 C.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 78 (Pa. Commw. March 3, 2009).

Date of Decision: 3/3/09


View Case Details »

Weiser v. Latimore Township (2008)

An applicant is entitled to approval of their final subdivision plan if their preliminary plan was approved as long as the final plan is substantially the same as the preliminary plan.

Weiser v. Latimore Township, 960 A.2d 924 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)

Date of Decision: 11/21/08


View Case Details »