Case Name	Case Description	What is the argument?	Venue	Next significant event
Hammell & Witwer Farm—Procedural Challenge to Ord 119 & 120	Asked ZHB to void due to improper adoption process	Witwer Farm claims—The Township didn’t follow all the rules when adopting Ordinance 119 & 120. Township claims— The Township followed the Municipalities Planning Code when adopting the ordinances.	ZHB	ZHB ruled in applicant’s favor and voided ordinance. The effect is to return the Township’s zoning ordinance to the regulations in place on July 4, 2006. The Twp has appealed. Read this.
Elliot Building Group (Stevie Stoltzfus Farm)—Substantive Challenge to Agricultural District regulations	Asked ZHB to void regulations because they were too restrictive and didn’t serve a public purpose	Applicant has to prove the regulations in the Ag District were adopted arbitrarily and capriciously and don’t serve a public purpose. The ordinance is presumed valid as a matter of law, and the burden of proof is on the applicant.	ZHB	Applicant withdrew on 2/5/2007.
Elliot Building Group—Subdivision denial appeal	Asking Court to reverse Supervisors’ disapproval of 268 unit townhouse development	Elliot Bldg Group claims—The Township had a duty under the law to allow the developer to fix problems with the plan, therefore the court should order the Township to do so. Township claims—The developer turned in a plan showing 268 units. To get that many units, the developer also had to show proof of about 70 TDR’s, otherwise the plan would be limited to 170+ units. The developer didn’t provide proof of TDR’s, so the Township was right to disapprove the plan.	Court of Common Pleas	Both Elliot and Township submitted briefs. Court will decide merits of appeal based on the briefs filed and the record below. ====================== June 30, 2007 - A Court of Common Pleas decision upheld the Township’s disapproval of the plan.
Honey Brook Estates (Lester Stoltzfus farm)—Substantive Challenge to Agricultural District regulations	Asked ZHB to void regulations because they were too restrictive and didn’t serve a public purpose	Applicant has to prove the regulations in the Ag District were adopted arbitrarily and capriciously and don’t serve a public purpose. The ordinance is presumed valid as a matter of law, and the burden of proof is on the applicant.	ZHB	Applicant withdrew on 2/5/2007.
Honey Brook Estates (Lester Stoltzfus farm)—Subdivision denial appeal	Asking Court to reverse Subdivision Officer’s rejection of plans & Supervisors’ disapproval of 73 unit townhouse development	Honey Brook Estates claims—The Township had a duty under the law to accept the subdivision plans for review. Once the plans were accepted for review, the Township had a duty under the law to allow the developer to fix problems with the plan. Township claims—The developer submitted incomplete plans, and the Subdivision Officer was right to make the developer complete them before the Township reviewed them. Also, had the plans been complete, there were serious flaws in ordinance compliance, therefore the Board would be right to disapprove the purported plans.	Court of Common Pleas	Both parties have to submit legal briefs to the court.
Hammell I & II Mandamus Action—Two developments totaling 190+ units	Asking Court to compel the Township to review subdivision plans submitted prior to Ordinance 119 & 120 taking effect.	Hammell claims—The Subdivision Officer incorrectly rejected the plans from entering the review cycle. Township claims—The developer submitted incomplete plans, and the Subdivision Officer was right to make the developer complete them before the Township reviewed them.	Court of Common Pleas	At developer’s discretion, will try to prove case. Will require interviews and legal argument.
Tel Hai Validity challenge & variance application for 300+ living units	Asking the ZHB to invalidate the zoning regulations that purportedly prevent Tel Hai from building a 300 unit development in the Agricultural district. If the ordinance is found valid, Tel Hai is asking the ZHB to allow it to build anyway.	Tel Hai’s application. · To prove the validity challenge the applicant must prove the ordinance is unduly restrictive and that restriction doesn’t serve a public purpose. The ordinance is presumed valid as a matter of law, and the burden of proof is on the applicant. · To qualify for a variance, the applicant must prove there is something about the land (a hardship) that prevents it from complying with the ordinance and that hardship is not of the applicant’s own doing. Under the law, the hardship must be “of the land,” not for financial reasons.	ZHB	Hearing on March 26, 2007.