Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, without opinion, the Commonwealth Court's decision in Shaffer Family Limited Partnership v. Zoning Hearing Board of Chanceford Township.1 This case has caused an uproar in the real estate development community. Many real estate developers and their attorneys are now asking, "What governmental approvals are required for the creation and use of planned community and condominium regimes in Pennsylvania?"
In its decision, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Shaffers' division of a tract of land into units, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Planned Community Act, and the subsequent transfer of one of those units—without first having received subdivision or land development approval—was unlawful.
Some legal practitioners have disagreed with this ruling. However, the Shaffer case is not a departure from existing law, and the court decision may not have much changed the legal landscape, if at all. Nonetheless, the result in the Shaffer case does illustrate one important consideration for real estate development: It is prudent to seek legal guidance in the proper use of planned communities and condominiums in order to take advantage of the significant development flexibility they can provide—and to avoid a result like that in the Shaffer case.
Footnote
1. Frank N. Shaffer Family Ltd. P'ship v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Chanceford Twp., 2010 Pa. LEXIS 26 (Pa. Jan. 26, 2010), aff'g 964 A.2d 23 (Pa. Commw. Ct., 2008).
If you have any questions about the proper creation and use of planned communities and condominiums, please contact Marc D. Brookman, David I. Haas, any other member of the Real Estate Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
This article is for general information and does not include full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide professional services and should not be construed as a statement as to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally, offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by today's evolving global markets.
