Sitting en banc, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (seven Judges) recently ruled that Charlestown Township acted within its authority to reject a Planned Residential Development (PRD) Plan because the Plan failed to comply with the minimum open space requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. An important case for municipalities throughout the Commonwealth, the Court upheld the governing body’s discretion to reject a land use plan outright for failing to comply with substantive and objective ordinance requirements.

In Robal Associates, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township, No. 2079 C.D. 2008 (June 23, 2010), the Commonwealth Court unanimously overturned the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County remanding the appeal of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) Plan to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration. The PRD Plan sought tentative approval to develop a 30-acre property in the Township with 40 townhouses and 10 single-family homes. After numerous hearings, the Board of Supervisors rejected the Plan because it did not contain sufficient “open space” as specifically required by the Township Zoning Ordinance and certain other violations.

On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas remanded the Plan to the Board of Supervisors in order to allow the Applicant to make modifications to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding that the Board properly rejected the tentative PRD Plan for at least one objective, substantive reason, specifically the Applicant’s failure to comply with the 50% minimum open space requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.

The PRD Plan purported to devote 50.08% of the property to open space prior to the Board finding that 1.718 acres of grading for buildings and road did not qualify as open space. Removing the areas of grading from the open space calculations reduced the qualifying open space to less than 50%. The Court held that minimum open space requirements are objective requirements since a simple ratio was available to determine compliance, and they are substantive requirements since they relate to a minimum area of open space. Therefore, the rejection of the tentative PRD Plan was upheld.

The Commonwealth Court further found that the trial court misapplied the law regarding remands in land use appeals, which was for fact-finding purposes only. The Court found no authority for granting leave to amend the tentative PRD Plan last presented to the Board. A governing body is only obligated to review the Plan as submitted, therefore the Board acted within its authority to reject the Plan outright.

The decision, a pdf of which is attached, was not appealed; therefore it is controlling precedent. Please contact our office for further advice or explanation.

Mark P. Thompson
Voice (610) 430-8000
Fax (610) 692-6210
mthompson@lambmcerlane.com

Vincent M. Pompo
Voice (610) 430-8000
Fax (610) 692-6210
vpompo@lambmcerlane.com