In a recent decision, the Commonwealth Court clarified how zoning overlay requirements apply to noncontiguous parcels connected by a road. The case, Artisan Construction Group, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Pottsgrove Township, offers important guidance for developers working with overlay districts and highlights the need for precision in zoning interpretations and land development planning.

Background

Artisan Construction Group sought to develop senior housing in Upper Pottsgrove Township under a zoning overlay district designed for age-restricted communities. The overlay district required that a development tract be located within 500 feet of Route 100.

Artisan’s proposal involved two noncontiguous parcels — labeled Phase 2A and Phase 2B — connected by a road. Phase 2A was within the required 500 feet; Phase 2B was not. Artisan contended that the road “bisected” a single overall tract, making both parcels eligible under the overlay district.

Initially, the Township’s zoning officer rejected both phases. Artisan revised its plan, removing interior lot lines, and resubmitted. The zoning officer approved Phase 2A but continued to find that Phase 2B did not qualify. Artisan appealed to the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board and, in the alternative, requested a use variance. The Board denied both claims.

Procedural History

The trial court reversed the Board’s decision without explanation. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court remanded for further analysis, and the trial court subsequently ruled that the road did not need to “bisect” a contiguous tract for the overlay provision to apply. It found that the two parcels together constituted a single “overall tract.”

In a second appeal, the Commonwealth Court disagreed.

The Appellate Ruling

In a 14-page opinion, the court held that the trial court erred in concluding that Phase 2B was eligible for overlay treatment based solely on its connection to Phase 2A via a road. The zoning ordinance permits a development tract bisected by a road to qualify for overlay treatment if any portion lies within the 500-foot proximity requirement. However, the court found that:

• The road at issue did not bisect a single tract — it merely connected two separate, noncontiguous parcels.
• The parcels were approximately 300 feet apart and not part of one unified landmass.
• Allowing noncontiguous tracts to qualify based on road access alone would lead to an unreasonably expansive interpretation of the ordinance.

The court reaffirmed that zoning ordinances must be interpreted according to their plain language and common usage. It also upheld the Zoning Hearing Board’s jurisdiction, finding that Artisan properly appealed the May 2020 zoning determination in a timely manner following its revised submission.

The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the still-unresolved request for a use variance.

Key Takeaways for Developers

• Contiguity Matters
  Developers cannot assume that connecting parcels via a road satisfies zoning requirements for a single tract. The physical layout and legal definitions of the parcels are critical.
• Precise Interpretation of Zoning Language Is Essential
  Overlay provisions will be narrowly construed. Terms like “bisected” must be understood in their ordinary sense unless otherwise defined.
• Timeliness and Procedural Clarity Remain Key
  The case also affirms that revised plans following an adverse zoning officer decision can restart the appeal clock, so long as the revisions are substantive.