Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

Page 2 m October 1996 Z.B. Spot Zoning k Campground claims ordinance singles it out Shohola Falls Trails End Property Owners Association Inc. v. Zoning Hearing ;Board of Shohola Township, 679 A.2d 2335 (Pennsylvania) 1996 Shohola Fails Trails End was a campground that was approved by Shohola (Pa.) Township in :[972. It had about 1,850 lots, which were owned by about 1,600 people. Under the township's subdivision'ordinance, lots had to be at least one acre. However, a variance passed in 1972 allowed lots in the campground to be 4,500 square feet -- considerably less than the minimum. In return for the variance, Trails End had to enact restrictions that would regulate the lot own- ers' use of their properties. For example, because the campground was ap- proved as a temporary vacation spot, Trails End had to prohibit owners from living there permanently. After Trails End failed to enforce its regulations, the township passed a zoning ordinance to preserve the nonresidential nature of the campground. The ordinance limited the number, size and placement of recreational vehicles and structures on each lot. In 1992, Trails End applied for a zoning permit to place a recreational vehicle, an enclosed deck and a shed on one lot. The permit was denied be- cause the structures would violate the requirements for maximum tot density and side-yard setback. Trails End appealed the decision and requested a variance from the two requirements. At board hearings, it also challenged the ordinance's constitu- tionality. The board refused to grant the appeal, saying Trails End showed no evi- dence the zoning officer made a mistake or misinterpreted the ordinance. It denied the variance because Trails End did not prove it would experience a hardship .without it. The board found Trails End did not overcome the pre- stimption that the ordinance was valid: Lot owners were not deprived of the right to use their property as it was intended for recreation. Trails End appealed the'board's findings. The court affirmed. Trails End appealed again. It claimed that by enacting the ordinance, the township engaged in spot zoning which deprived its lot owners of their prop- erty rights. Trails End argued the township treated it differently from surround- ing properties. It also said the ordinance was enacted not to promote'public health, safety and welfare, but to deprive owners of the use of their property. DECISION: Affirmed. The township's zoning ordinance was valid. Trails End was not entitled to a variance. A zoning ordinance that promoted public health, safety and welfare was valid. The requirements Trails End challenged were enacted for safety reasons. One prevented overcrowding on lots that were already smaller than the township's one-acre minimum. The other (the setback requirement) was in-