Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Z.B. March 10, 2004 -- Page 7 appropriate in determining a valuation. A well-informed purchaser .of essen- tially unimproved farmland would necessarily take into consideration the cost to improve the land for development purposes in amving at a price he or she would be willing to pay for the property. Consequently, since RST provided no evidence of the costs of commercial de, velopment, the city's valuation based on current zoning and the likelihood of a zoning change was correct. see also: Landmark Development Inc: v. City of Roy, 980 P. 2d 1234 (1999). see alxo: Shields v. Garrison, 957 P. 2d 805 (1998). Subdivision -- Landowner acquires two tracts with different legal descriptions Tracts originally conveyed by single deed Citation: Springfield Township v. Halderman, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 989 C.D: 2003 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA (01/16/04) --Halderman acquired two tracts of land that each had its own distinct legal description. He did this with a single deed. Later, without seeking subdivision approval, he deeded the tracts to himself with two separate deeds. The township sued, arguing Halderman engaged in illegal subdivision. The court ruled in its favor. It found the property was used as a single unit, with the two tracts merged to form one lot. Consequently, Halderman illegally subdi- vided the property when he separately deeded land originally conveyed by a single deed. Halderman appealed, arguing- the doctrine of merger applies only to lots that are nonconforming because of size. Each tract was at least three acres, as required by the ordinance. DECISION: Reversed. The doctrine of merger could not'serve as a basis to merge the two tracts. The township could not order Halderman to deed the two tracts back to himself as a single lot or prohibit him from selling either tract without subdi- vision approval. The term "merger" was used in zoning law and in the construction of a zoning ordinance to describe the effect of a zoning ordinance on lots held in common ownership. It was related to the issue of physical merger of adjoining nonconforming lots. The township zoning ordinance defined a nonconforming lot as one that failed to conform to area or dimension requirements. Consequently, because the two tracts were of adequate acreage, they were not nonconforming lots under the definition and they could not have merged into one lot. see also: Daley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Moreland Township, 770 A.2d 815 (2001), see al~'o: Timcm~ Township v. Jones, 723 A.2d 1068 (1998). :