A recent decision by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania illustrates why the requirements of a zoning code should not be read in a vacuum.
The court ruled that a developer's 41-townhome project was properly rejected by Radnor Township because its conditional use application included an underground stormwater management system in the same area it was labeling as open space.
Radnor concluded that because the stormwater system constituted a "structure," the developer's application did not satisfy the Township's zoning ordinance requirements for common open space.
Background
The developer owned four contiguous parcels of land in Radnor Township's R-4 zoning district. The Township’s zoning code permits a Density Modification Development (DMD) by conditional use approval. The developer filed an application to construct 41 townhomes on the property, including plans for common open space areas and an underground stormwater management system.
Following a hearing, the Board of Commissioners denied the application. The Board concluded that the proposed stormwater management system, located beneath the open space area, qualified as a "structure" under the zoning code. Therefore, the area above it could not be counted towards the required amount of common open space.
The developer appealed to the trial court, which upheld the Board’s decision. The trial court agreed that the proposed system was a "structure" and did not meet the common open space requirements of the zoning code.
Commonwealth Court Analysis
In its 11-page decision in Trustees of the Dorrance Hamilton RA Trust v. Radnor Township Board of Commissioners, the Commonwealth Court's analysis focused on its interpretation of applicable Township zoning ordinances.
The ordinance specifies that "[a]reas set aside for common open space shall contain no structure other than a structure related to outdoor recreational use" (Radnor Township Zoning Ordinance, § 280-91(D)). A "structure" is defined as "[a]nything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground... including any man-made object having an ascertainable stationary location on or in land or water" (Id. at § 280-4).
The developer argued that "in or on land" did not include underground facilities and that the system would not interfere with the use of the above-ground open space. However, the Commonwealth Court concluded that the ordinance's language was clear and unambiguous. It determined that the proposed stormwater management system, being a man-made object located in the land, was indeed a "structure."
The court acknowledged that the first sentence of Section 280-4 did not seem to include the system, but the broader definition in the second sentence did. The court determined that the second sentence acted as a "catchall" provision, including man-made objects "on or in land."
Therefore, the proposed stormwater management system classified as a "structure," and the areas above it could not qualify as common open space for the proposed development. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, which upheld the Board’s decision, reinforcing that zoning requirements should be read as a whole, not in isolation.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the necessity of a comprehensive understanding and adherence to zoning ordinances in land development projects. Reading the applicable ordinance provisions together, rather than as separate parts, the Commonwealth Court upheld the Board's decision to deny the conditional use application based on the system's classification as a "structure."
[View source.]
