Excerpts from RTMSD vs. Edgmont Township

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND MANDAMUS

COUNT III – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Exclusionary Zoning)

• “The Township Zoning Code §365-4.B(11) states that in interpreting the Zoning Code, the Township is “to provide educational opportunities within the Township close to existing residential areas to address elementary school educational needs.”
• “Despite the plain language of §365-4.B(11), the Zoning Code does not provide for schools in the R-1 Zoning District; by far the largest residential zoning distinct in the Township. In fact, the Township Zoning Code prohibits elementary schools from all residential zoning districts.”
• “None of the vacant parcels zoned for schools within the PRD-3, PRD-4, and C-3 districts, are suitable for use as an elementary school, nor are they available for RTMSD to purchase.”
• “Despite contributing more to recent population growth than any other municipality served by RTMSD, the Township, through its Zoning Code, has created a situation where the construction of an elementary school in close proximity to residential areas cannot be accomplished, and de facto excludes elementary schools from the Township.”
• “The Township’s continued refusal to absorb increased responsibility and economic burden for the construction of a new elementary school is precisely what the de facto exclusionary doctrine is designed to prevent. The Township’s denial of RTMSD’S applications perpetuates the de facto exclusion of elementary schools from the Township, and is contrary to §365-4.B (11) of the Zoning Code which recognizes the necessity for elementary schools being constructed close to residential areas.”
• “The Township also fails to accommodate its fair share of elementary schools within the Township. The “fair share” test requires “local political units to plan for and provide land-use regulations which meet the legitimate needs of all categories of people who may desire to live within its boundaries”
• “Despite its rapid population growth, the Township has clearly failed to plan for and provide land use regulations which meet the needs of elementary age students, and their parents, who desire to live in the Township. The Township’s purported denial of RTMSD’s Applications, and the bases upon which it relies, bears no relationship to any legitimate municipal objective, and is unconstitutional as being arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.”
• “Under the facts presented, the Township’s actions in denying RTMSD’s Applications frustrate RTMSD’s authority under Section 702 of Pennsylvania’s Public School Code to “locate and determine” its site for the new elementary school since there are no other sites in areas of the Township zoned for schools that allow for the practical location of elementary schools. (“The location and amount of any real estate required by any school district for school purposes shall be determined by the board of school directors of such district, by a vote of the majority of all the members of such board.” 24 P.S. §7-702″

“WHEREFORE, RTMSD respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an order in favor of RTMSD as follows:

1. Declaring that the Edgmont Township Zoning Ordinance is exclusionary and unlawful in failing to provide educational opportunities within the R-1 Zoning District close to existing residential areas to address elementary school educational needs;
2. Declaring that the Edgmont Township fails to provide its fair share of elementary schools within the Township;
3. Declaring that Edgmont Township is without authority to prevent Plaintiff RTMSD from locating an elementary school on the Property it owns or equitably owns in Edgmont Township; and
4. Awarding to RTMSD its attorney’s fees, costs of suit and such other relief which the Court deems just and proper.”

COUNT IV – COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS
(Failure to Cite to Ordinance)

• “Pursuant to Section 508(2) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, when a subdivision and land development application “is not approved in terms as filed the decision shall specify the defects found in the application and describe the requirements which have not been met and shall, in each case, cite to the provisions of the statutes or ordinance relied upon”
• “Nowhere does Resolution 8 of 2023 cite to any provision of the Township SLDO as a basis for its denial of the School Plans.”
• “Given the Township’s illegal denial of the Text Amendment, in the absence of any specific reference to the SLDO as a basis denial of the School Plans, RTMSD is entitled to deemed approval of the School Plans.”
• “Pursuant to 83 P.S. § 8303, RTMSD is entitled to its damages for the Township’s failure and refusal to perform its duty required by law.”

“WHEREFORE, RTMSD respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant the relief sought in Count IV herein and enter an Order granting a “deemed approval” of RTMSD’s Application for preliminary subdivision and land development approval, and awarding to RTMSD its attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and such other damages and relief which the Court deems just and proper.”

COUNT V – COMPLAINT IN MANDAMUS
(Bad Faith)

• “[A] municipality has a legal obligation to act in good faith upon any proposed subdivision and land development plan. This duty includes discussing matters involving technical requirements or ordinance interpretation with an applicant, and providing an applicant a reasonable opportunity to respond to objections or to modify plans where there has been a misunderstanding or difference of opinion.”
• “At all times relevant, RTMSD followed the express comments, directions, and suggestions of the Township in pursuing the development of a new elementary school within the Township,”
• “Following the June 21, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, when the Planning Commission, in violation of Section 712.1(a) of the Sunshine Act, voted to not recommend the Applications to the Board of Supervisors, the Township took no further public action regarding the Applications until RTMSD directed that the Applications be brought before the Board of Supervisors for further consideration.”
• “Thereafter, the Township did not raise any objections to the Text Amendment or School Plans that RTMSD did not address or resolve. In fact, thereafter, the Township never communicated to RTMSD that the Applications failed to meet any of the standards and criteria for considering amendments to zoning set forth in §365-201.B. of the Zoning Code.”
• “The Township, instead, privately and in violation of the Sunshine Act, fabricated conclusions, without factual support, purportedly explaining how RTMSD failed to meet certain standards and criteria under §365-201.B. of the Zoning Code. The Township failed to disclose why RTMSD purportedly failed to meet the standards and criteria under §365-201.B. of the Zoning Code prior to taking action on RTMSD’s Applications on February 14, 2023, despite RTMSD’s request to examine Resolution 8 of 2023 prior to the Township Board of Supervisors’ action.”
• “In reliance upon direction and information from the Township, RTMSD expended over $2,000,000 in additional public funds responding to Township’s comments and requested revisions to the School Plans.”
• “Based upon the foregoing, the Township acted in bad faith in denying Plaintiff RTMSD’s Applications, and therefore RTMSD has a clear legal right to the deemed approval of its Application for preliminary subdivision and land development approval.”
• “Pursuant to 83 P.S. § 8303, RTMSD is entitled to its damages for the Township’s failure and refusal to perform its duty required by law.”