Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

March 10, 2014 i Volume 8 i Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin Further, the court found that the R-Rural zoning classification was not unjustified. To the contrary, the court noted that the C-2 Commercial proper- ties had frontage along the local highway, unlike Penn Street's property. As well, the court found that Penn Street's property was not substantially differ- ent from the similarly zoned lands to the south, southwest, and west, which were used for agricultural purposes, as Penn Street's property consisted of prime agricultural soils. Finally, the court found that there was no indication here that the Township singled out Penn Street's property for differential treat- ment from similar surrounding uses —as all of the properties at the same intersection as Penn Street's property were zoned R-Rural. Penn Street had also argued that its reverse spot zoning claim was sup- ported by the fact that its property was included within the Township's Urban Growth Boundary. The court rejected that argument, noting that a zoning ordinance's inconsistency with a comprehensive plan could not be the basis for a reverse spot zoning challenge, as the comprehensive plan was merely an "abstract recommendation as to land utilization." Next the court addressed Penn Street's challenge to the density restrictions under § 704(2) of the zoning ordinance. The court found that the restrictions limiting Penn Street's development to only one lot per 25 acres did not violate Penn Street's constitutional rights to use and enjoy its property. Rather, the court found that the restrictions were a proper use of police power to further agricultural property. The court found that the ordinance preserved prime agriculture and farmland through its "fixed scale system," while allowing for development of smaller tracts. The court noted that there was no indication that the intent behind the fixed scale system was arbitrary or exclusionary. Furthermore, the court found that the ordinance was not so unduly restrictive as to preclude reasonable development. See also: Atherton Development Co. v. Township of Ferguson, 29 A.3d 1197, 1204 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). See also: Main Street Development Group, Inc. v. Tinicum Tp. Bd. of Supervisors, 19 A.3d 21 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011), appeal denied,, 615 Pa. 759, 40 A.3d 123 (2012) and appeal denied, 615 Pa. 759, 40 A.3d 123 (2012). Standing —Nonprofit organizations bring claims against cruise ship operator for violations of zoning laws City, state, and cruise ship operator say organizations lack standing to bring claims Citation: Carnival Corp. v. Historic Ansonborough Neighborhood Ass 'n, 2014 WL 229894 (S.C. 2014) SOUTH CAROLINA (01/22/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether certain organizations bringing claims of zoning violations possessed standing to assert their claims. 4 © 2014 Thomson Reuters