Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 5 The Background/Facts: Peim Street, L.P. ("Penn Street") owned a 16.11- acre tract of land in East Lampeter Township (the "Township") (the "property"). Penn Street sought to subdivide the property into 54 parcels and develop single-family homes on each parcel. The property was located in the R-Rural zoning district. In the R-Rural zoning district, lot restrictions, under § 704(2) of the Township's zoning ordinance (the "ordinance"), limited development of properties containing more than 10 acres, but less than 25 acres, to development of only one additional lot from the existing lot. In December 2011, Penn Street filed an application with the Township's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB"). In its application, Penn Street challenged the inclusion of its property in the R-Rural zoning district. Penn Street argued that the R-Rural zoning of its property constituted unlawful reverse spot zoning. It claimed that its property was being treated differently than other similar prop- erties in the "triangle" that were zoned to the more permissive C-2 Commercial zoning designation, without any justification. Penn Street also argued that the lot restrictions in the R-Rural zoning district, under § 704(2) of the zoning ordinance, were unreasonable and unduly restrictive and not a valid exercise of the Township's police power. It also argued that the lot restrictions were an unreasonable infringement upon its constitutionally protected right to freely use and enjoy its property. The ZHB ultimately denied Penn Street's reverse spot zoning challenge. The ZHB also rejected Penn Street's substantive validity challenge to the R-Rural zoning district's density requirements set forth in § 704(2) of the zon- ing ordinance. Penn Street appealed. The trial court affirmed the ZHB's determination. Penn Street again appealed, raising the same contentions. DECISION: Judgment of court of common pleas affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania first held that Penn Street failed to establish improper reverse spot zoning. The court explained that spot zon- ing is the "unreasonable or arbitrary classification of a small parcel of land, dissected or set apart from surrounding properties, with no reasonable basis for the differential zoning." The court further explained that reverse spot zon- ing, the theory advanced by Penn Street, occurs where an "island" develops as a result of a municipality's failure to rezone a portion of land to bring it into conformance with similar surrounding parcels that are indistinguishable. The court said the burden was on Penn Street•to prove that its property was being treated unjustifiably different from the similar surrounding land, thus creating an "island" having no relevant differences from its neighbors. The court concluded that Penn Street failed to carry that burden. The court found that Penn Street's property was not an "island" surrounded by proper- ties with less restrictive zoning classifications, but was rather a peninsula. The court noted that there had never been a successful claim of spot zoning in a "peninsula" fact situation, as here. Rather, the court found that although the properties to the north and east of Penn Street's property were zoned C-2 Commercial, the properties to the south and west of the property were also zoned R-Rural. ©2014 Thomson Reuters 3