A 312,000-square-foot industrial warehouse project in Lehigh County recently moved one step closer to final approval. After nearly three years of being challenged by its local municipality, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a clear message to municipalities and developers alike: once a preliminary land development plan is deemed approved, the municipality cannot move the goalposts. Learn what this means for commercial developers when seeking project approval.
Case Summary
Lowhill Township v. Core5 at Valley Commerce Center, LLC (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., No. 588 C.D. 2024, filed Sept. 10, 2025) brought finality to the warehouse project three years in the making.
In 2022, the project’s original applicant, Trammel Crow Company, submitted a preliminary plan to develop a 43-acre parcel in Lowhill Township. The Township’s Board of Supervisors voted to approve the plan 2-1 but failed to issue a written decision within the statutory time limit. Under Section 508(3) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), that failure triggered deemed approval of the preliminary plan as submitted.
A year later, in May 2023, Core5 (Trammel Crow’s successor) submitted its final land development plan for approval. The final plan was, by every technical and practical measure, the same as the preliminary plan, with only minor engineering updates and additional details requested by the Township’s own consultants.
Two days after Core5 submitted its plan, however, the Township abruptly rescinded an intermunicipal agreement that would have extended public water service to the site. Citing this reversal, along with a handful of engineering items, the Township denied the final plan. Core5 appealed to the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, which ruled in its favor, finding the plans were “essentially the same” and that the Township’s actions were improper under the MPC.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed that ruling in full.
Land Use Rights Affirmed
The Commonwealth Court’s opinion emphasized several core principles that reinforce the balance between local oversight and developer rights under the MPC.
- Deemed approval means approval – once a municipality fails to act on a plan within the time allowed, the plan is approved as submitted—no conditions, no caveats, and no opportunity for post hoc revisions. The Township’s failure to issue a written decision on the preliminary plan meant it became lawfully approved, creating vested rights for the developer.
- “Substantially the same” test protects developers – under Section 508(4)(i), a municipality must approve a final plan if it is “substantially the same” as the preliminary plan that was approved. Here, the record showed the two plans were effectively identical: the same layout, footprint, and use. Even the Township’s own engineer used the same review letter for both versions. Minor technical updates didn’t change the substance of the project.
- Townships cannot retroactively change the rules – the Court rejected the Township’s attempt to deny the plan based on its later decision to rescind the water service agreement. Once the plan was filed, the Township could not impose new or changed conditions. The MPC protects developers from shifting municipal actions that could otherwise render approved projects unbuildable.
The Court also rejected the Township’s argument that Core5’s status as a successor developer voided its rights. Successors in interest are recognized as lawful applicants under the MPC. And while these land use rights were affirmed for Core5, they’re key lessons for all commercial real estate developers in PA:
- Timelines matter; if a deadline passes without written action, your rights may already be vested
- Consistency is key; substantive design changes can jeopardize your entitlement
- Protect your project against midstream policy changes; developers should work closely with legal counsel to ensure these municipal actions like changing ordinances do not retroactively impair vested development rights
Since this decision was made, the Township appealed it to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Support for your next commercial development project
For developers, the Core5 decision serves as both a reassurance and a reminder—careful adherence to the MPC’s procedural framework is one of the most effective ways to safeguard a project’s viability from politics, delay, and administrative inconsistency.
Pennsylvania’s Municipalities Planning Code is designed to ensure predictability and fairness in the land development process—especially when local politics or timing issues threaten to derail otherwise compliant projects. When developers follow the process, they are entitled to rely on it.
Need support in your commercial development project? Our Real Estate, Land Use & Development team is well-versed in MPC and can help you with land use, zoning and more!
