With
the recent decision from the Commonwealth Court in Heritage
Building Group v. Plumstead, the constant cries of pro-development
candidates in local elections that municipalities spend too
much money fighting developers have been silenced, hopefully
for good. The Court ruled in Plumstead’s favor in the
on-going Substantive Challenge (functionally, the same thing
as a curative amendment) and in the process rendered a decision
that will have an enormous and positive impact for all municipalities
within the state.
The Court ruling provides the first statewide judicial
support for two important issues.
1. That active farmland should be considered as developed
when determining how much land is available for future development
within a municipality. This distinction dramatically reduces
the acreage that must be considered when a municipality
plans its zoning to provide its “fair share”
of different housing types.
By way of example, let’s say a municipality has
8,000 acres of farms and 500 acres of inactive farmland.
The developers had maintained that all 8,500 acres had to
be considered as available for development whereas the Court
ruled that the municipality only has to consider the 500
inactive acres. Obviously, this is a critical distinction.
2. The Court ruled that a municipality does not have to
zone a property for its most profitable use. This may seem
like common sense but it is an argument that developers
have used repeatedly and it is one that townships have been
forced to defend at great expense to the taxpayers. This
ruling should finally put the issue to rest.
Plumstead v. Heritage follows in the footsteps of Buckingham’s
landmark victory in 1998 against the same developer. At the
time, Buckingham’s late solicitor, George Bush, put
forth the position that farmed land is developed land in the
same sense and to the same degree as any other land involved
in a commercial use. Mr. Bush’s position was supported
by Common Pleas Judge, John J. Rufe in a through and enlightened
decision. Concerned about the massive implications of the
decision, Heritage decided to drop their appeal to the Commonwealth
Court, leaving it as the law in Bucks County, but not throughout
the state. (Only decisions of the Commonwealth Court or higher
are applicable statewide.) Plumstead’s victory in the
higher court confirms Judge Rufe’s earlier decision
and allows municipalities throughout the state to benefit
from them.
This is a critical victory in our fight to preserve our communities
and one that has happened only because the Board of Supervisors
in several municipalities had the wisdom to defend their communities
rather than capitulate to the developers to save a few dollars
in legal costs. In the long term, the legal costs incurred
would be mere pocket change when compared to the enormity
of the increased taxes that could have resulted from the massive
new development that would have occurred had not those boards
had the courage to stand and fight. Our hat is off to the
supervisors of Plumstead. Thank you from all of us!
To review the complete decision, please see Heritage
Building Group v. Plumstead.
|
