Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

April 10, 2004 -- Page 7 exaction." A development exaction was a contribution to a government entity imposed as a condition precedent to approving a developer's project. These exactions could take the form of mandatory dedications of land for roads, schools, or parks; fees in lieu of mandatory dedication; water or sewage con- nection fees; or impact fees. To be constitutional, the government had to show an essential connection between a legitimate state interest and the land dedication requirement. Im- portantly, the government had to make some sort of individualized determina- tion that the dedication was related both in nature and extent to the proposed development's .impact. B.A.M. was required to dedicate 13 additional feet of land abutting the highway before the county would approve the subdivision plot. This consti- tuted a developmental exaction. Consequently, a reviewing body had to deter- mine whether requir/ng the exaction served a legitimate government interest, and whether there was a rough proportionality between the exaction and the impact of the proposed development. Spot Zoning -- Property subject to stipUlation Under stipulation, greenhouses treated as buildings Citation: Hines Nurseries Inc. v, Plumsread Township Board of Supervisors, Commonweal& Court of Pennsylvania, No. 711 C.D. 2002 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA (02/20/04) -- Van Wingerden leased a portion of his prop- erty to Hines Nurseries Inc. H/nes had greenhouses and conducted intensive agricultural use on the property. The property was subject to an agreed stipulation settling a zoning dispute between Van Wingerden and the township regarding a building permit to allow additional greenhouses. Pursuant to the stipulatiOh, all present and future plas- tic-covered greenhouse structures were considered buildings and, as such, were subject to a 15 percent building coverage restriction in the zoning ordinance. Several years later, a line adjustment was granted, specifically stating it was subject to the conditions in the stipulation. Van Wingerden sued, arguing the township board of supervisors was en- gaging in illegal spot zoning. Specifically, he claimed his land was identical to surrounding properties but was singled out for more restrictive treatment. The court ruled in favor of the board. Van Wingerden appealed. DECISION: Attlrmed. Van Wingerden's spot zoning argument was without merit primarily be.- cause spot zoning was a concept of land classification. Van Wingerden was challenging conditions placed on his land that derived fi'om a court-approved stipulation to which he was a party. The stipulation did not alter tt~e zoning classification of the land. nor did it amend the zoning .:{,~ ,~,.~. Con:setnuentlv. it could not be .~pot zc. ning. 2004 ,Sulnlarl 2uolishing ,3roup. ),ny reproduction is 9roilibited. For m6re rnforrnation please ,:ail (617) :542-0048. 143