Municipal, Land Use & Zoning

If you own two adjacent lots, you might be interested in the following recent case:

In Cottone, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court examined when and how two adjoining lots may merge in the face of a change to the zoning ordinances. The Court determined that if two adjoining, but separately owned, lots are rendered undersized by a new zoning ordinance, the two properties will continue to be treated as a lawful, nonconforming size. Even if the lots later come under common ownership, they will not be presumed to merge and instead the municipality would have to prove that the new owner intended to use them as one integrated parcel. Conversely, if the same two adjoining lots had been under common ownership at the time the ordinance changes, the two lots are now considered undersized, and are presumed to have merged.

For more information on how this case may affect your property or development plans, please contact our office.

Cottone v. Zoning Hearing Board of Polk Township, 292 C.D. 2007 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has published a final rule that will become effective January 16, 2009 which is available at http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/finalrule.htm.  This rule updates the Family and Medical Leave Act regulations.  For more information about how the new regulations may effect you, please contact our office.

The Department of Education has published a final rule that will become effective January 8, 2009 which is available at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2008-4/120908a.pdf.  This rule updates the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act regulations.  For more information about how the new regulations may effect you, please contact our office.

The new Right-to-Know Act became effective January 1, 2009.  Information pertaining to the Act can be found at the Office of Open Records’ website http://openrecords.state.pa.us/. This law may impact your municipality, school district or government agency.  For assistance in implementing this new law, please contact our office.

Over the next few posts we’ll be including some case summaries that may be helpful to you and your land development planning. 

McGrath Construction, Inc. v. Upper Saucon Township Board of Supervisors, 1358 C.D. 2007 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).

In McGrath, the Commonwealth Court, discussed the granting of approval of a plan conditioned on sewer service for the proposed development.  Traditionally, where an outside agency’s approval is needed (i.e. for sewer service) a municipality must condition final approval of the development on obtaining the permit from that agency and not just deny the development plan.  Here, however, the Court found that in order for the applicant to provide certification of sewer capacity (i.e. to get the outside approval) it had to engage in an adversarial process against the very Township reviewing the plan to change its ordinance.  So, the Court determined the municipality was not required to condition approval of the plan on an amendment to the Act 537 Plan.  As a result of this decision, municipalities and developers have additional considerations during the plan approval process about the conditions a Township may place on a plan approval. 

For more information on how this case may affect your development, please contact our office.

Welcome to the Municipal Section’s blog.  This blog will address current laws, interesting trends and legal issues affecting municipalities, authorities, school districts, developers and property owners in and around West Chester and Chester County, Pennsylvania.

Please bookmark and visit this site regularly or subscribe in the box on the right to receive email updates when items are posted or updated. You can choose to receive updates through a RSS feed or regular email.  We hope you find this blog informative and helpful.

Ross A. Unruh

Andrew D.H. Rau

Anthony T. Verwey

Kimberly P. Venzie