Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court‑remanded Orchard Tract proposal moves forward: supervisors approve settlement and 111‑unit townhouse plan under conditions
Summary
Following years of litigation and a court remand, the board approved a stipulation and approved a final major subdivision/land development plan for Lennar’s Orchard Tract (111 townhouses), attaching conditions, engineering review compliance, traffic permits and a stipulation and settlement with the owner as required by court orders.
Township counsel reviewed the Orchard Tract’s litigation history and the board’s legal responsibilities before the supervisors acted Aug. 12. Solicitor Esposito and staff traced the project’s record: a 2006 rezoning to a Multi‑Residential (MR) district, variances and a prior land‑development approval that stalled after the 2008 market crash; a 2017 revival of the plan by Lennar with subsequent appeals, a denial by the board in 2020 and years of court proceedings that concluded with remands requiring further township action.
Esposito told the board that recent court rulings ordered that the township permit the land‑development plans that had been before it at the time of the 2020 denial unless the township could point to an ordinance‑based legal basis to deny them. The board discussed the fiscal risk and the prospect of further taxpayer expense if they continued to litigate without new legal grounds.
The supervisors voted to grant preliminary and final major subdivision and land‑development approval for up to 111 townhouse units along Woodburn Road, subject to a stipulation and settlement agreement that requires the applicant to waive claims against the township, compliance with several review letters (township engineer/traffic engineer/fire marshal), receipt of PennDOT approvals where required, posting of financial security, and entry into land‑development and stormwater maintenance agreements. The motion also requires payment of outstanding fees and a traffic‑impact fee specified in the traffic‑engineer letter. Counsel and staff described the action as a way to end protracted litigation and avoid further taxpayer costs while protecting township review rights through conditions.
